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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Kathy:
Thanks, but your response misses the point of both my and Jeff E's comments. 
I was asking why you are making an "exception" for new entrants with no market 
share and no market power AFTER they meet some burdensome requirements, when 
logic suggests that one should allow CO and/or VI for new entrants as a general 
rule and only making an exception for firms with market power. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:10 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of
> 
> Hi Milton,
> As we have discussed before, my Orphan Exception is a PRE-LAUNCH
> Process.  It is designed to assure success, and it kicks in early, to
> allow the new gTLD Registry to assure distribution of its TLD. Please
> take a look at the details again:
> 
> The Orphan Exception arose from the debate in Seoul before NCUC that you
> and I organized -- and the discovery it is completely possible that a
> small new gTLD registry **might not find distribution for its TLD**.  In
> our ICANN system, the Registrar has full choice: to register in a gTLD
> -- or not.  So we learned that it was possible that a small gTLD, a
> noncommercial gTLD, a gTLD for a specific group **might not be carried
> by Registrars.**
> 
> In that case, and only that case, in the PRE-LAUNCH Period, the gTLD
> applies for Orphan Status. There is no financial disaster at this early
> time -- and that's the point. The new gTLD has its energy, its drive,
> but no real distribution. That's fine, under the exception, it qualifies
> to do its own distribution -- until it reaches a certain point of
> registration (after which we assume Registrars will opt in to distribute
> the now-established domain name).
> 
> It makes sense and lots of members of this WG are supporting it publicly
> and privately.
> It's the maximum choice for all, Milton.
> 
> Kathy
> 
> -----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.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>