Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the continuity instrument

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The DAG requirement puzzles me.

A community-based registry has no obvious alternative for registrants 
to re-brand to, Richard Tindale's hypothesis for the three year goal.
A registry contemplating entering "continuity operations" could 
voluntarily transfer its good will and registry contract and related 
assets (sell, a la Geir's sale of .name to VGRS), and if so, what is 
the point, or the fate of, the significant cash value of the deposit 
(in either of the two forms described in the addenda to Module 2)?
The DAG requirement clearly envision the continued operation of all of 
the registry functions, not necessarily with no new registrations, but 
with no continued operations by the operational staff, or within the 
operational facilities, of the "continued registry". It is a 
performance bond for no-cost-to-acquire transfer of the registry 
assets, less its physical infrastructure and labor contracts, left 
intentionally breached, to the acquiring operator.
If a registry is located in Reston, as .biz was, and fails, as .biz 
would have had the NANPA revenues not been available, we don't have an 
issue if the continuity plan moves all the .biz assets from one part 
of Reston to another and VGRS provides continuity operations.
However, our applicants are outside of Reston and it is not consistent 
with the diversity interest if "continuity" becomes the means by which 
millions of dollars raised from, or on behalf of, developing 
economies, are placed in escrow in US banks, and together with all 
good will and registration assets, given to registry operators in the 
highly developed economies. Stealing from the poor shouldn't be so 
convoluted if that is the policy goal to be realized.
Eric