{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["Proposal_Matrix"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1904","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"Proposal_Matrix","index":0,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Ref. No.",null,"% Cross-Ownership Ry-> Rr","% Cross-Ownership Rr-> Ry","If Rr agrees not to distribute Ry's TLD, is more cross-ownership allowed?","Use of ICANN-Accredited  Rrs (IA Rrs)","Ry must accept (1) all IA Rrs (gTLD model) OR (2) may select among IA Rrs based on special, objective criteria (sponsored TLD model)","Non-Discrimination  Among Rrs (Technology, Customer Support, Etc) ","Single Registrant Exception?","Community gTLD Exception?","Orphan gTLD Exception? ","Under threshold: (1) Ry may distribute directly (subject to RAA-type obligations) OR (2) Ry may co-own a Rr > 15% to distribute TLD","Equal Access Required Below Threshold?","Backend Registry Service Provider %Cross-Ownership Rr?","% Cross-ownership Rr-> Backend RSP?","Reseller cross-ownership limitation? ","Review later?","Emphasized section (something you would like to highlight)","Penalties"]
[" ",{"$nulls":4}," ","EQUAL ACCESS ","EQUAL ACCESS ",{"$nulls":4},"EQUAL ACCESS "]
[2,"Intellectual Property Constituency Updated","0 (zero) %","0 (zero) %; see exceptions","No ","NO, for qualified .BRAND exceptions;\nYES for all others","Qualified .BRAND RY should be permitted to enter into exclusive arrangements with one or a limited number of ICANN-accredited registrars for the purpose of sponsoring registrations in that gTLD,. ","NO, for qualified .BRAND exceptions; YES for all others","Branded Single and Multiple Registrant Exceptions subject to conditions","No","No","For qualified .BRAND exceptions, RY may distribute directly","N/A","N/A","N/A","N/A",null,"Three .BRAND models: (i) Branded Single Registrant, Single User; (ii) Branded Single Registrant, Multiple Related Users; (iii)  Branded Trademark- Licensed Multiple Registrant, Multiple Users\n\nAll .BRAND TLDs seeking the benefit of the exception must also meet 7 additional conditions that are intended to limit the applicability of the exceptions and to discourage abuse and gaming of the exceptions."]
["1a","DAGv4",0.02,0.02,"No","YES","(2) Special, objective criteria -- must accept all who meet the criteria","Yes","No","No","No","No","N/A","Mikey couldn't find a reference","Mikey couldn't find a reference","Mikey couldn't find a reference","Mikey couldn't find a reference","The text in this section is possible implementation language resulting from the resolutions of the ICANN Board (adopted at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi) with respect to the separation of registry and registrar functions and ownership.  During the recent Board Retreat in Dublin during May 2010, the board reviewed possible issues that might result from a strict interpretation of the Board’s resolutions. It was the sense of the Board that: \n\n1) the draft proposed stricter limitations on cross ownership represents a “default position” and they continue to encourage the GNSO to develop a stakeholder based policy on these issues; \n\n2) a very strict interpretation of the resolutions might create unintended consequences; \n\n3) staff should produce language in the agreement matching a “de minimus” acceptable approach (2% language) while remaining generally consistent with the resolutions; \n\n4) the Board encourages community input and comment on the correct approach to these issues in the absence of GNSO policy; and \n\n5) the Board will review this issue again if no GNSO policy results on these topics."]
[null,"Afilias/PIR /GoDaddy/RNA Partners/eCOM-LAC/CORE /Cheryl Langdon-Orr/Sébastien Bachollet /Alan Greenberg/Jothan Frakes/Olga Cavalli","15% & Structural Separation","15% & Structural Separation","No","YES","(1) All ICANN-Accredited Registrars","YES","No","No","No","N/A","N/A",0.15,0.15,"No","Not addressed, although ongoing work of the WG is envisioned","An overarching concern that informs this proposal is the prospect of gaming and the negative impact for registrants arising from the potential misuse of registry data… Abuse of registry data will result in higher prices and the unavailability of higher value domain names. Prevention of registry data abuse would be easier under this proposal than under proposals that rely on purported behavioral safeguards to prevent such abuse."]
[5,"CORE ",0.15,0.15,"No","YES","this misstates the critieria for .museum, .cat and .coop registrars and should not refer to \"sponsored TLD model\", it is something else.","YES","No","No","No","No","N/A","consistent with CORE, CORE does not sell .cat or .museum","consistent with CORE, CORE does not sell .cat or .museum","N/A","step by step","Still absent from matrix, RO shall not to restrict Rr to a single, RO controlled or RO controlling RSP. Competition among RSPs (plural) for RO registrants. ","deaccreditation."]
[7,"Neustar/Demand Media/Network Solutions/Domain Dimensions/Key-Systems GmbH/Phil Buckingham/INDOM/Blacknight/Dynamic Network Services, Inc/EuroDNS/Steve Pinkos","15% or Control","15% or control","Yes, 100%","YES with exceptions subject to RAA or RAA-type obligations","(2) Special, objective criteria -- must accept all who meet the criteria","YES but see exceptions","Yes, limit no 3rd parties, no number limit","Yes, up to 30,000","Yes, up to 30,000","Either","Yes ","15% if they \"control the pricing, policies, or selection of registrars for that TLD\"","15% if they \"control the pricing, policies, or selection of registrars for that TLD\"","Control/15% extends to resellers for first 18 mos.  After that, ok to resell with structural separation protections.","At least 18 months","We only support the proposal as a whole.  If certain restrictions are not adopted, then others may not be applicable or supported (e.g. use of registrars and equal access)","Sanctions program for back-end providers that violate strictural separation rules."]
[8,"CAM (formerly MMA)","15% - Up to 100% if no competion issues","15% - Up to 100% if no competion issues","Depends on competition authority review","Presumption of yes but exceptions possible","(2) - can require special objective criteria but must accept all who meet the criteria.","YES","Yes,strict  limitation on assignments and non-transferable","Yes under 50,000 names ","not needed","Distribution can be done by a registry under adequate RAA constraints and so long as there is no market power.","Presumption of equal access except for specific exemptions","15% - Up to 100% if no competion issues","15% - Up to 100% if no competion issues","15% - Up to 100% if no competion issues","yearly audit","1. Requires review by CESP with possible forwarding to appropriate competition authroties to increase crossownership beyond 15%. 2. requires audits and  ICANN verification and enforcement in cases where strict seperation is not maintained.","Strict Penalties/Sanctions"]
[9,"Demand Media ",1,1,"Already 100%","YES"," ","YES","Yes","Not needed","Not needed",null,"Yes, SR; no MR","100% if RSP does not affiliated with Registry","100% if RSP does not affiliated with Registry","No","No"," Registry Operator or its Affiliate can co-own an  ICANN-Accredited Registrar in a TLD other than the TLD for which Registry Operator or its Affiliate serves as the Registry Operator.  ","Yes"]
[10,"The 4 Registrars ","100% & Strict Financial Separation","100% & Strict Financial Separation","Already 100%","Yes","(1) All ICANN-Accredited Registrars must be accepted","YES","Yes","Not needed","Not needed","Depends on the threshold. We tend towards 2 but would not want to see SR Ry unable to exist because threshold is too high. In that case, we would need to look at 1.","No","100% & Strict Financial Separation","100% & Strict Financial Separation","No","Review in clearly defined cases. No automatic review obligation.","(a) Only exception to equal access is case of SU registries. (b) While consumer harm may be possible in some VI/CO scenarios, it does not necessarily follow from it. A blanket prohibition or limiation in %% will however limit innovation and competition.","\"Firm and strict penalty system\""]
[13,"Free Trade Model proposed by Sivasubramanian M","100% & Non-interference","100% & Non-interference","N/A","N/A","Yes","YES","N/A","N/A","N/A","No restraints","N/A","No restraints"," No restraints","None","Once in 3 years","The focus needs to be on harms. A Registry must be free to go about its business and Registrar must be free to go about its own business. It is not for ICANN to stipulate conditions that restrain the survival and growth of the Registries, Registrars and back-end service providers. The assumption that a complex set of rules result in better discipline may not be right. This approach takes ICANN closer to being a bureaucratic establishment. The discussion on vertical integration actually distracts the attention away from the issues in vertical integration (Discrimination, Insider trading, Domain registration abuse, Domain tasting, Front-running, Predatory pricing, Account lock-ins, Transferout pricing, Less product variety) because the underlying issues take a back seat in\nall the discussion about limits on cross ownership and limits on control. The focus needs to be on the list of harms and how a Registrar or Registry may be restrained in the event that it is detected that a certain Registry or Registrar is engaged in harmful practices.","Penalties for harmful practices can vary  from relaxing Registrar accreditation fees and rules to increase the number of Registrars to foster better competition, issuing directives to a Registry to treat all Registrars on par, to withdrawal of accreditation of a Registrar to even\ndirecting a Registry to stop registering any more names."]
[]
[null,"Old versions"]
[1,"ICANN Board Resolution","0 (zero) %","0 (zero) %","No","YES"," ","YES","No","No","No",null,"N/A","Avri says zero (0) Kathy says Board silent on this issue."," "," "]
[3,"Afilias",0.15,0.15,"No","YES"," ","YES","Yes, up to 30,000","Yes, up to 30,000","Yes, up to 30,000",null,"No",0.15,0.15,0.15]
[4,"PIR ","15% & Full Structural Separation","15% & Full Structural Separation","No","Yes","(1) All ICANN-Accredited Registrars","YES w/ slight marketing variation; \"Efficient Marketing\" allowed.","Yes, up to 50,000","Yes, up to 50,000","Yes, up to 50,000","(1) Registry may distributed domain names directly up to threshold.","Yes","(not in proposal, but agree to 15%)","(not in proposal, but agree to 15%)","(not in proposal, but agree to 15%)",null,"\"Efficient marketing means that Registrars may approach Registries with specific proposals to allow them, on a special basis, to target special marketing projects\"","\"Clear, severe and rapidly implemented\""]
[6,"GoDaddy ","15% & Full  Separation.","15% & Full Separation.","No","YES","(2) Criteria must be non-discriminatory and must be based on the intended purpose/use of the TLD.","YES","No","No","Pre-delegation - No. Post delegation with evidence - Yes.","Thresholds not supported. No restrictions on distribution. 15% ownership limit.","Equivalent access under all conditions.","15% & Full  Separation.","15% & Full  Separation.","Not addressed.","At least 12 mo.","Allow appeal to ICANN for relief if \"new gTLD registry believes its survival is threatened by a lack of support of Accredited Registrars\" or possibly for other reasons.","Yes, as already provided for in current Registry Agreements."]
[11,"GNSO Council Final Report on Introduction of New gTLDs, 8/8/2007",null,null,null,"YES- Recommendation 19"," ","YES- Recommendation 19",{"$nulls":9},"Recommendation 19: \"Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.\""]