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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> since community TLDs have to run such a gauntlet to get to community status

What gauntlet? If you read the DAG carefully, in essence, all an
applicant has to do to get community status is to check a box. If there
is no contention for the string, I don't see anything that would come
close to a gauntlet. I don't have a problem with that, unless exceptions
are going to start being made for them. In that event, a guantlet should
be mandatory to get the designation and the definition of community
should be revisited.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated MMA proposal now called CAM
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, May 31, 2010 8:50 am
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

It allows a community TLD to establish itself in its community.

In a small community startup like that they may not be set up to do so,
or the expense of serving a registrar client base may be difficult in
first days. The provision is more meant to allow them to sell their own
without needing to have set up something and especially in cases where
there is no registrar interest. They are not forced to deny, and if they
can support it and there are registrars knocking at their door, I don't
know why they would deny them, but they could if they had to. 

The first idea was to restrict this exemption to the cultural and
linguistic, but since it was pointed out in the WG that this would be a
hard differentiation to make cleanly, and since community TLDs have to
run such a gauntlet to get to community status, allowing the leeway for
all who made it through that grueling process, but at a lower rate than
some suggested, is a proposed compromise. 


a.



On 31 May 2010, at 09:21, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> 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>
>> 
> 
>