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

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

Richard,

 

1.       Yes

2.       Yes. In the current revised text the applications data goes to
Competition Authority, there is no pre-submission comment period. Although
speaking individually, I see no problem with some other options. For example
each application will have it own public comment forum. ICANN could provide
a link to those competition agencies for people to write. ICANN could auto
forward any email received to the competition authority.  I think the
biggest data point on this issue, is what would be most optimal for the
competition authority. 

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised Text to MMA Proposal

 

Michael,

 

Are these the two main changes from your first proposal? :

 

1.   the referral to Competition Authority now occurs post-TLD application;

 

and

 

2.   there is no longer a public comment period

 

RT

 

 

 

On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:





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-vert
ical-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-registrar-separation-verti
cal-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf