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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kathy,

While I know you are looking for a compromise on the Orphan TLD idea does not 
work in a real marketplace, but I do believe there is an excellent idea in your 
proposal. Lets forget about the gaming issue for a second and think about what 
the Orphan idea does to a TLD.

The TLD has to go around with its hands out begging for a spot on the shelf, 
then if everyone rejects them they have to make a special application to ICANN 
stating they are so unwanted that they need to announce it to ICANN, have a 30 
day comment period for everyone to know and comment how bad and unwanted their 
TLD is and then the next step. Build or Buy a Registrar. 

This TLD that has no interest has to invest even more money to buy a registrar 
or build one. For someone that runs a registrar I can tell you this is no easy 
task. Then once they finally get their registrar up and running they can only 
sell X number of domains, then they are held back.
Now faced with this future, I believe we will force out a great deal of 
applicants, especially ones in developing countries or with somewhat limited 
budgets. I do not believe that is your goal, but think that will be an 
unintended consequence. 

I do believe there is an excellent idea in your proposal and that is to allow 
the Registry to own a Registrar and allow them to sell and manage up to a 
certain number of domains. This is the original Jon Nevett proposal and I 
believe allowed a Registry to own a Registrar and sell up to 100,000 domains so 
the TLD could get off the ground. Once the TLD was established, say 100K 
domains, the Registry could no longer sell new domains, just manage their 
existing. This would cut off the potential harms as the owned Registrar and 
give a new TLD a chance to enter the market and compete right from the 
beginning, not after months of going around begging and having to become an 
orphan.

Maybe Jon Nevett could help explain his original proposal on the call today, or 
maybe I am putting him on the spot, but I think it is an idea that is worth 
considering (reconsidering) as it removes all the gaming concerns, that orphan 
stigma and allows competition from the beginning.


Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:14 AM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of


Hi Eric,
Tx for your question. You are, of course, talking about the gaming of
the exception, and not its intended purpose. But it's a fair question
nonetheless.

The purpose of the orphan exception is to reflect problems we have heard
-- that with so many new gTLDs, a small one may not be picked up by
registrars, and thus may not be distributed to its intended audience
(e.g., a small community, a developing country set of groups, etc.).

It is not intended to provide a way for a gTLD Registry of a new .BLOG
or .WEB, for example, to keep their domain names to themselves and away
from the Equal Access provisions for registrars.

So Eric, would the following restrictions protect against the problems
you raise?

1.  You can only get Orphan status if 3 or fewer registrars offer your
TLD --  at any point in time; 

2.  You have to apply in writing to ICANN for Orphan status and there is
a 30 day comment period before you can start operations with your own
registrar or directly (e.g., 30 days for ICANN-Accredited Registrars to
say "Yes, I want to offer this gTLD!"; and 

3.  If, after you start your own registrar operations,  additional
registrars start offering your names (such that then more than 3
unaffiliated registrars are offering your TLD) -- then your own
affiliated registrar is limited to managing X thousand names (e.g.,
30,000 or 50,000) -- at which time you must stop distributing your TLD
domain names entirely. 

Best,
Kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:51 AM
To: Kathy Kleiman
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of


Kathy,

Am I correct in understanding the "orphan" status?

Suppose Registrar X has a standing offer to every new gTLD registry
applicant. For those applicants which garner no other offer, X is
guaranteed 50,000 transactions at a margin it sets.

X could set the price at 10x the registry price, prompting the
registry to pay greenmail to get "orphan" status, and sell its
inventory at the registry price, or fail.

If the first 50k names are going to be generics and trademarks and so
on, at sunrise and land rush pricing, will any applicant obtain
"orphan" status before that inventory is exhausted?

Thanks in advance,
Eric

------------------

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.