Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated MMA proposal now called CAM

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

MMA,

For Community TLDs (up to 50K names),  what's the reason for the registry 
denying access to interested registrars who comply with registry's rules?

RT



On May 28, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> To fellow members of the VI WG.
> 
> Attached is a copy of the revised MMA proposal. It is now called the 
> “Competition Authority Model” or CAM.  While this proposal builds on the 
> original premise on MMA that evaluations on co-ownership and control must be 
> left to appropriate competition authorities, it also tries to take into 
> account comments and concerns that others in the VIWG have expressed.
> 
> Briefly:
> 
> - We have upped the threshold point to 15% again in deference to the 
> prevailing condition in existing contracts.  This compromise is dependent, 
> however, on the rest of the conditions in the proposal.  
> 
> For co-ownership greater then 15% the proposal requires going through two 
> step review:
> 
> 1)  A “quick look” from an ICANN-assembled group, the Competition Evaluation 
> Standing Panel (CESP)similar to the RSTEP standing committee. If they don’t 
> see a problem, the application goes ahead.
> 2)  If the  CSEP flags a problem (based on market power including issues of 
> control) then it is forwarded to the appropriate national competition 
> authorities.
> 
> - Registries and RSPs are allowed to sell through affiliated Registrars so 
> long as specific defined steps to mitigate possible harm are taken.  These 
> steps are required in all cases where selling is done through affiliated 
> Registrars  to also mitigate any possible harm that might be manifest in 
> cases where co-ownership is less than 15%.
> 
> - The proposal continues to allow for SR registrant exceptions from the 
> presumption on the use of ICANN Registrars, though it is open to tightening 
> the conditions for such exemption similar to those suggest by the IPC, but in 
> addition to equivalent exemptions for established NGOs and other 
> noncommercial institutions.   
> 
> - The proposal also allows for Community TLDs to provide registry services up 
> to 50,000 second level registrations with an exemption from the presumption 
> of equivalent access to ICANN Registrars.   The proposal, however, requires 
> full equivalent Registrar access for new registrations and for transfers 
> after that level is reached.
> 
> We hope that this proposal is useful in driving the discussion a bit closer 
> to a consensus point.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> <CAM-proposal-v4.doc>
>