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

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Exactly!  Tx Roberto, Kathy

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:30 PM
To: Dr. Milton Mueller; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - MMA


Milton:

> Let me contrast this with the PIR proposal. The PIR exception 
> for "orphan TLDs" is quite meaningless, in my opinion. It 
> admits that registrars may not take up new, smaller TLDs and 
> then says: you can only escape these failing market structure 
> requirements AFTER YOU FAIL. In other words, you are not only 
> expected to spend $1 million or so to enter the market, you 
> are then expected to waste another several million failing in 
> the market for a year or so, and after you demonstrate this 
> failure to ICANN you can get out of those arrangements. I 
> appreciate the intent behind the proposal, and I know that 
> Kathy is sympathetic to the cause of new and smaller TLDs, 
> but the proposal is derisory in its concession to encouraging 
> market entry. 


As co-chair, I would not normally enter the debate on a proposal. I am doing
it now because I see I might have misunderstood something.
I interpreted the "orphan" clause as a last resort for recovery for a
failing registry, not as an incentive to jump into operation without
appropriate market analysis.
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?
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
proposal, i.e. the one we are going to have consensus on by June ;>)

Cheers,
Roberto