I think we need to be very careful with the notion that “a lot of work was put into the comment so we shouldn’t change it.” That’s a slippery slope that I believe even Justine in this case would prefer to avoid.
That said, we’ve had a pretty full throated discussion of CW’s proposal and did not reach a level of support that would justify a call for consensus. Justine’s draft DOES condemn auctions for the flaws that Christopher identifies but we
also have to deal with the reality that rich entities have a lot of ways to win so we need to focus on the edge cases we care about and maximize protections in those cases, such applications from underserved regions and CPEs. Truthfully, as Alan and Alexander
stated, in MOST cases there will not even be a clear winner from a public interest standpoint so a formally objective process will be replaced by a horrendously political subjective one to no real end. We really don’t want some panel discussing whether .Photography
should go to Donuts or Affilias.
However, I continue to believe that the Vickrey auction (as the method of last resort) has the potential at least to address some of the most egregious behavior from the 2012 round that is likely to expand in future rounds. While we would
be alone in trying to throw out auctions altogether, we have allies and leverage in efforts to decrease the incentives to speculate and game the system. I suggest we focus hard on those opportunities and on underserved regions and CPEs and not fold so easily
as Carlton suggests took place last time.
Just some thoughts.
J
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:05 PM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>
Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>, "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: Calltfortfeedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to NewtgTLDtSubsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
+1 Marita, Holly et al There has been a lot of time and effort that has gone into what we have already agreed to. Its too late to bring up anything new.
I also think it is now too late to throw this one into the package -- too many loose ends we haven't considered.
Marita
On 12/16/2018 6:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I’m afraid I am with Jonathan and Alan on this one. Have we really worked through what an RFP would look like/be administered? Maybe a bold statement looks terrific, but Justine has spent a lot of time and effort working through how a
process could be modified to accommodate our concerns (well done Justine) - and as Alan points out, have we really tested an RFP regime enough - against the benefits to the end user - such that we are confident in its benefits?
Holly
I think we really need to choose our battles in this one and that doesn't include changing the whole program over...
Innovators Network Foundation
Hi,
To that point (RFP-type of solution):
It seems that in the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases it has been "portfolio applicants" squaring off against each other; and they just wanted a "fair compensation" for "giving up their asset". All of them are the same "good" or "bad": they make the TLD available
via registrar channel.
Only a very small percentage of contention sets ended up at the ICANN last resort love-fest. So I think these few cases could be resolved in a RFP style way.......
The question is: Even if ALAC is in agreement with such stipulation; how to convince the rest of ICANN?
Thanks,
Alexander
-----Original Message-----
From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Chillcott
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:16 PM
To: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu
Cc: cpwg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
Christopher:
Although I am not a fan of the idea of an auction of any type, I am warming to the idea that this might be the most feasible alternative.
Of the other candidate solutions, the best would probably be the Request for Proposal (RFP) route. This would answer the one question that auctions are weakest on - how is this applicant qualified to operate this particular TLD?
Having said that, Requests for Proposal would need to be quite carefully
crafted. Criteria for selection of an applicant would need to be
carefully and specifically described in order to measure the applicant against the purpose of the new TLD. This is not easy and, in fact, can be expensive.
Collection and evaluation of the responses, which is going to involve carefully measuring the response against the RFP's criteria to find
“the best fit” .is another effort that would need to be considered
and costed out.
Part of that cost, by the way, is the time required to develop the RFP, collect the responses and evaluate them – all of which contribute to the
length of time needed to make a decision.
My own experience suggests that these costs would need to be examined and compared to the cost of an auction of whatever type.
Gordon Chillcott
Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group
On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 21:28 +0100, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
> Pour memoire
>
> CW
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg