[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [Tdg-legal] Updated Agenda for 27 January Consultation

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Eric

Good questions.

For the third one (Fungibility Specificity) I assume the response will be that 
cash is the best form of security.  If a registry's security was a contract 
with a third party who promised
to keep running the TLD the risk would be that this third party also failed   
(either prior to, or after,  the failure of the original registry).  

That said,  let's see how staff respond.

RT



some back-end operator to continue running the TLD if you fail

someone
On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Craig,
> 
> Thanks for the rescheduling note, and thanks in advance to the staff 
> who are making themselves available for the COI portion of the call.
> 
> I've been expecting some comment on the COI constraints:
> 
> o the temporal duration.
> 
> Is this a sunset or a transition provision?
> 
> If a transition operator is found in the first year (or less), what 
> becomes of the two years (or more) of the original applicant's 
> irrevocably obligated resources?
> 
> o the depository institutional specificity.
> 
> If the applicant is a large regional agricultural cooperative, with a 
> financial services (ag bank coop) arm, but not "strong international 
> reputation" and/or not rated by S&P or Moody, does it need to secure a 
> LOC externally? Rinse and repeat for other cooperative and/or ethical 
> forms of financial institutions.
> 
> o the fungible specificity.
> 
> We have a lot of registry operators to choose from. Why are none 
> capable of being specified in the response to Question 50? Why is the 
> only form of response a fungible asset (irrevocably committed to ICANN)?
> 
> Unrelated to the COI issue is "Best Practices". I don't see these as 
> being contractual in the present or even near future (as they haven't 
> even taken form as suggestions, let alone risen to the level of 
> practices reviewed and found to be "best" (or simply better than ...).
> 
> Is this item strictly necessary on Thursday's agenda?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> TDG-legal mailing list
> TDG-legal@xxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tdg-legal