Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

The number of registrars need only be 1 for this issue to arise in theory.

It could be eNom (no offense eNom) or it could be one of their string
of shell registrars, it doesn't matter. Ditto for the other three
large shell collectors [eNom (116), Snapnames (104), Dotster (51),
Directi/PDR (47)] and another 122 accreditations owned by 23 distinct
entities, just to pick on the North American domiciled RAA entities.

Seriously, as the annual revenue for a shell in the back-order has
approached a very low multiple of the annual cost to retain
accreditation, given that that marginal profit is enough to motivate
rational persons to enter the back-order registrar market (a slot on
the drop pool wheel of fortune for rent to a back-order player), the
likelihood that some will "invest" in the neo-orphan opportunities, in
the expectation that the registry will buy them out to get orphan
status seems high. As of this year, shell's make on the order of $400
per month, so if a shell can inflict a 10% wastage surcharge over the
ICANN charge on a single neo-orphan to be "bought out", that's 4 years
worth of current revenue.

And of course, the payoff can be a percentage of future revenues, when
orphan status has been awarded, and direct registration takes place.

Rinse and repeat. For each so-inclined registrar, and for each
neo-orphan registry.

Eric