Yes Olivier, we need to discuss it. I have always been against the auction as a mean for contention resolution. The reason is that the winner would be the richest. I remember in Mexico (2009) I said any other mean will be better even if it is a random draw because in this case rich and poor people will be on the same footing. The only advantage of the auction option is that money will enter ICANN account. As Seun rightly noticed, even an RFP would need evaluation, and if there is a tie (both applicants have equal evaluation score), we find ourselves in the same situation. I would prefer that Community application have priority, and more evidently, applications that passed the Applicant Support program evaluation, and thus, they don’t compete with the other applicants in case of contention. Now, when we have sting contention between 2 Community applications (or 2 Supported applications), or between a community application and a supported one, we will be in a tied situation too. To solve all these tied situations, we may find a criterion such as the application coming from the most underserved region wins or any other criterion. In case there is none, we may proceed to a random draw. This is what I prefer, but I know it’s not easy to implement. I find Justine proposal a way to mitigate the harm a little bit, but it is far from eliminating it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 14 déc. 2018 à 09:45, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> a écrit :
2.1.c.1 In general I do not support auctions They favour the parties with the 'deepest pockets'. They also burden the successful applicant with financial liabilities, particularly if the auction has been financed by debt or third party investment. Those additional costs will be passed on to the eventual registrants through fees and charges.
It would be better if TLD registries were operated on a not-for-profit basis in the public interest. This would also reduce the financial incentive not to cooperate and to go to a forced auction.
and
2.1.d.2.1 Agreed. The RFP options should be thoroughly explored and codified. In the case of geographical TLDs the RFP should be undertaken by the public authority or other responsible entity in the geography concerned. The successful applicant's registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction.