RE: [wg-c] Discharging employees no longer needed after loss of contract. (Former thread "registry contracts".)

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Right, true in Europe, as well as perhaps elsewhere?  Some of the WG members
from Europe might know the facts... I'd overlooked that, good catch, Bob.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@psi-japan.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:05 AM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-c] Discharging employees no longer needed after loss of
contract. (Former thread "registry contracts".)


At 08:32 15-11-1999 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote:
>If operators have no title interest in registry data, and the mechanism
>for renewal is competitive bid on price with nominal non-price conditions
>which resolve to capitalization, then at each rebid, each operator will
>have only their initial capitalization and accumulations, direct as well
>as indirect, from registry operation.

One aspect of this concept of moving a registry from one operator to 
another (as proposed by Kent's proposal) is that, in many political 
jurisdictions, the losing operator will have major responsibilities for 
employees it no longer requires.  In lots of places you can't just 
discharge employees because you lost a contract.

Comments?

BobC