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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kathy,

Thank you for the response. As you know, I think that the registry
operator seeking an effective registrar channel has recourse to
cooperation with other registry operators also seeking an effective
registrar channel, but I'm accepting the representation of necessity
and the mechanism you've proposed for the purposes of asking, not if
it is good or necessary, but if it is achievable, and if not, what
must be added to make it achievable.

My concern is that "orphan" can't happen. Registry failure due to a
lack of effective registrar channel(s) can, and will happen, all of
the circa-2001 sTLDs have been skating on that thin ice for a decade
now. However, the designation of "orphan" for whatever purpose, but in
particular, the purpose of obtaining an exception to Recommendation
19, can be the target of gaming.

Not to pick on eNom, but it does have more than a hundred shell
registrars, so assuming a desire to maximize its shareholder benefit,
just the eNom registrar resource inventory, is sufficient to provide
three unique, not-necessarily-functional registrars for 30 plus
registries, preventing them from obtaining "orphan" status and the
attendant benefits of that status.

This is why, when I was still interested in dialog with one of the
proposal authors, I recommended that "registrar" be limited to
registrars with some known, or provable capability. I wrote that the
shell registrars are not our (registry hat="on") problem, we didn't
create them, etc.

So as a test for a "registrar" to be an effective retail channel for a
registry, part of OT&E, I suggest the ability to register 1,000 test
domains in an hour, or a record of being useful for some of the
existing registries.

You're not looking for a "registrar", or a couple of "registrars" to
not be an "orphan", you're looking for a transactional stream capable
of generating some minimum revenue stream and creating the brand for
the intended market.

Basically, don't craft this so any idiot can greenmail a registry into
paying an additional "ICANN hidden fee" to get lost so that the
registry can exploit any exception you or others manage to get adopted
as policy and do direct registration.

This is intended as constructive criticism from a competitor.

Eric