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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Ahhh

I realized the 40% rule was gone, but I assumed only applications proposing 
more than 15% cross-ownership went to Competition Authority (CA).     

You're saying any proposal >0% would go to CA?

RT

On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>