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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

And there is no more talk of 15% ownership or 40% market share

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-vertical-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf