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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

I would tend to disagree with you. Under the MMA proposal incorporating the
RRA safeguards into registrant agreement that a registry enters into with a
registrant does not make a Registry a Registrar. In fact one of the key
provisions of the MMA proposal is the concept of a Registration Authority
Master Agreement.

Best regards,

Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Milton L Mueller; 'Kathy Kleiman'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of


Jeff:

I don't think that is entirely accurate.  We have discussed the benefits of
having all names registered by an entity bound by the terms and protections
of the RAA and related consensus policies.  Any entity bound by the RAA is a
registrar.  The RAA requirements are important regardless of whether there
is market power.  You may not agree with that rationale, but it certainly
has been provided numerous times.  Thanks.

Jon

On May 3, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> Milton,
> 
> No one has also provided a rationale for requiring the use of registrars
or equal access to registrars absent market power either as presumably the
protections that supposedly kick in on equal access are only needed when
market power exists.  So, that should be back on the table as well.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: 'Kathy Kleiman'
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of
> 
> 
> Kathy
> The problem with the orphan exception is that it has got the problem
exactly backwards. It imposes restrictions upon new entrants and lifts those
restrictions only AFTER they are teetering on the brink of failure. 
> 
> As our conversation with the antitrust economists made clear, CO and
self-distribution among new TLD applicants should be _presumed legal_, and
restrictions imposed only if or and when a certain level of market power is
reached.
> 
> No one has ever provided a plausible rationale for what these initial
restrictions are protecting us against when the new gTLD has no market
power. All of the arguments (e.g., "co-mingled data") presume that the TLD
in question is well-established and in high demand and multiple registrars
are competing for access to it. That will not be the case for most new TLDs.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:14 PM
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>