Re: TLD assignment permanence

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> At 09:04 AM 11/24/96 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> >At 12:33 AM -0800 11/24/96, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >>The entire model would be changed from the notion that a registry
> >>*sells* a domain to the notion that a registry *licenses* a domain.  So
> >
> >	that's already the model, although the IANA does not currently
> >license for a fee.  however, assignments have never been permanent and
> >there HAVE been changes in assignment, from one organization to another,
> >for various TLDs.
> 
> For example, .COM was handled by SRI prior to 1993, and then was handled by
> NSI.  I assume one of the agenda items for IAHC is to recommend what should
> happen to .COM when NSI's five-year contract runs out in 1998.  NSI has said
> it assumes that when the contract expires, it will simply continue to
> administer .COM (and collect the various fees from the domain name owners)
> and will answer to no one.  

Hmm.  I was thinking of "license" in more concrete terms, meaning an 
actual signed legal document that is explicitly called a "license".  
I wasn't aware that any such thing has been used to date -- my 
impression has been that whatever legal documents have been used in 
the case of SRI and NSI have been essentially, well, ad hoc 
contracts. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E