mack
msg:3049910 | 1:40 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think this was a good example of "if it isn't broke don't fix it" Ican have done a pretty good job of managing the web fundamentals so far. By retaining the task with Ican there is no reason why this shouldn't continue. Mack.
|
Receptional
msg:3049928 | 1:49 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this purchase order is less than $10,000 |
|
Makes a mockery of contracts and lawyers in general wouldn't you say? :) [edited by: Receptional at 1:50 pm (utc) on Aug. 17, 2006]
|
econman
msg:3050166 | 4:52 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I suppose that just indicates the direct, out of pocket cost (payments from the US gov't to ICANN) is less than $10,000. I imagine the value of the contract to ICANN is a bit higher, but they don't have a place on the form to indicate that amount. ;)
|
wmuser
msg:3050693 | 10:05 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There was a lot of critics about ICANN in recent years but if they do really manage IANA for $10.000 then the U.S. government will not find an alternative managing body other than ICANN :)
|
econman
msg:3050819 | 12:07 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0) |
ICANN gets its revenue from fees paid by registrars, not from the US taxpayers.
|
wmuser
msg:3052031 | 7:41 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Its about managing IANA IPs/network not about domain names
|
esaslo
msg:3056230 | 8:11 pm on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Right, but do you know how hard it must be to manage the internet protocol databases? I know that the paperwork required for allocation of a Class C (254 IP addresses) has changed (increased) dramatically over the years.
|
|
