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...
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:37:38 PM To: cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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
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 <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 <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Pour memoire
CW
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>