RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised Text to MMA Proposal

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike. When you get a chance, could you send a revised version of
the full proposal?

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised Text to MMA Proposal
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 13, 2010 2:06 pm
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello All:

In light of yesterday’s discussion both on list and during the weekly
teleconference, Team MMA listened to these legitimate concerns and
revised a section of our proposal accordingly. Listed below is our
current proposal which we feel comfortable sharing to further advance
the discussion. While we think we have addressed some concerns, we have
likely opened up some new ones. However, we would welcome further
feedback to help advance the evaluation process. 

 Best regards,

Michael Palage on behalf of Team MMA


Registry Operator/Registrar Co-Ownership:  The following process is
modeled after components referenced in the recently published
Salop/Wright paper[1].  All gTLD applications would be required as part
of the application process to answer a series of standard questions
regarding its’ proposed domain name distribution model, .e.g.
registry-registrar, registry direct, hybrid, as well as any arrangements
impacting control with affiliated entities in the distribution model,
e.g. co-ownership, partnership agreement, marketing agreement.

Following the initial administrative check by ICANN in connection with
all gTLD applications received (currently estimated at 4 weeks), ICANN
would then forward to the appropriate competition agency or agencies the
answers to these questions as well as the proposed string of the
applicant. Competition authorities would then have 45 days to review the
applications to determine if any give rise to potential enforcement
action. If the agency or agencies notify ICANN and the applicant during
that 45 day period that the application may violate its competitions
laws, ICANN will place the application on hold for another period not to
exceed 60 days following the deadline that agency or agencies has
established for the applicant to respond to any information requests for
its investigation.  At the end of this period, or sooner if notified by
the agency or agencies that any issues have been resolved and unless
concerns have been flagged for further review or action

ICANN will approve the application. (Modified Salop/Wright Option 2). 
This hold period would have no negative impact on the processing of the
application by ICANN during the Initial Evaluation. The hold would only
come into play prior to contention set resolution in the case of
multiple applicants for a single string, or prior to contractual
approval if string is not part of contention set. Given that ICANN has
scheduled five months for the Initial Evaluation of all gTLD
applications, this should provide for more than sufficient time for the
competition agency or agencies to complete their review. 

Pros: Incorporates elements of existing cross-ownership proposals from
within the community; eliminates arbitrary ownership/control
percentages; provides for a parallel review of the application by the
evaluators and the appropriate competition agency or agencies; treats
all applicants on a equal basis; provides competition agency or agencies
with more information by which to make an informed decision; and
provides important public policy safeguards not previously incorporated
into the DAG.

Cons: While the principles of this framework can potentially be agreed
upon within the community by the Brussels meeting, the exact legal
documents and terms could not be finalized by that time. Will need to
check with competition agency or agencies to see if the proposal
framework model after the ICANN funnel request is scalable.


[1] See
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-registrar-separation-vertical-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf