RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - MMA

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> I fully agree with you that the "orphan" clause will not do much for
> the failing registry to save from failure, but my understanding is that 
> the matter would not be any better in absence of the "orphan" clause. 
> Or am I missing something?

The choice is not "orphan clause" vs. "no orphan clause." 
The chose is between liberalized cross-ownership and joint marketing 
arrangements and an orphan clause. 

If a smaller, niche TLD can enter the market as a cross-owned registry with its 
own registrar capable of selling its own domain, then the absence of registrar 
take up will not be fatal. At least they would be able to market it directly to 
the public, and if it was the only entity to sell it, the integrated entity 
would gather 100% of the available revenues. 

> What I am trying to understand is if people feel that the "orphan"
> clause, or similar "last resort" safeguards, could be:
> A) useful;
> B) irrelevant;
> C) dangerous.
> If it is useful, even in a limited number of cases, without creating
> additional harm, this can be something we could think including in the
> final

"Orphan" proposal is dangerous if it acts as a substitute for liberalized 
cross-ownership provisions. In other words, if we think we are making it easier 
for niche TLDs to enter the market because we have an "orphan" clause and so we 
don't need to do anything else, then orphan is harmful imho.