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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I understand both sides now, thanks.
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 20:44
> To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - MMA
> 
> 
> > 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. 
>