Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - MMA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I personally do not think predictability includes knowing whether one's 
application will be successful, and I also do not  think predictability 
includes knowing whether ones request for a waver would be approved.  While we 
discussed this during yesterday's meeting, I do not believe the WG decided that 
knowing whether a waver would be approved was something that would have to be 
dealt with before the application.  I think predictability means that if you 
know the cross-ownership is less than the cap, in this case 15%, you have no 
problem and that if it is over 15% you have to get a waver.  That would be 
predictable and that would, in my view, meet the conditions of the GNSO 
recommendations.

And it was definitely not our intention "that applicants would have to 
prematurely reveal their plans."

a.

On 13 Apr 2010, at 04:22, Richard Tindal wrote:

> MMA,
> 
> Thanks for the briefing last night.
> 
> The more I think about the 'competition referral' portion of your proposal 
> the more difficulties I'm having with it   (this is the piece where 
> applicants who want more than 15% cross ownership submit a written request -- 
> which is then subject to public comment and competition authority analysis) . 
>      I understand the concept behind it,  but I'm struggling with the 
> practicality of implementing it.
> 
> To give new TLD applicants predictability in the process (Implementation 
> Guideline 1) this competition referral would have to happen before the TLD 
> application window opens.  I think we agreed that last night.
> 
> The public and the competition authority will not be able to make informed 
> comments or judgements unless the applicant's written request contains a 
> reasonable amount of detail.  I think the request would have to include the 
> applicant's full ownership details, business plan and intended string.    
> Without that information I don't think the public or the competition 
> authority could make a meaningful analysis.
> 
> Given that, we would be putting applicants in the position of revealing 
> sensitive data prior to the application window opening.  For example,  
> another party could see the request and decide to also apply for the string.
> 
> Was it your intention that applicants would have to prematurely reveal their 
> plans?  Or do you see a way around this problem?
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 
>> Hello All,
>>  
>> Attached is the proposal which is being jointly submitted by Avri, Milton 
>> and myself to the working group for consideration.  We look forward to 
>> formally presenting this concept to the group on tomorrow’s call, and 
>> answering any questions that you may have.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Michael Palage (on behalf of Team MMA)
>> <Vertical Integration Co-Ownership Joint Proposal.pdf>
>