_______________________________________________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
On Dec 17, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I think we really need to choose our battles in this one and that doesn't include changing the whole program over...
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:37:38 PM
To: 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 ReportHi,_______________________________________________
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