RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated MMA proposal now called CAM
- To: "'Steve Pinkos'" <stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated MMA proposal now called CAM
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:11:31 -0700
Very excellent question.
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve Pinkos
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:49 AM
To: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated MMA proposal now called CAM
Dear Avri and VI WG Colleagues,
I am not an antitrust or competition law expert, but I'm very interested in
the updated CAM proposal which contemplates a review by competition
authorities of co-ownership. Following that logic wouldn't it also be the
case that some parties may want to seek action from competition authorities
if ICANN imposes strict separation, thereby limiting competition by one
class of applicant? Perhaps competition authorities will take it upon
themselves to review such a policy --- especially in light of a vastly
different gTLD market landscape than currently exists? Can any of the
competition law experts help out with this question?
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 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.
- 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
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
- 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
- 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.