Steve,
Thank you for your response. I had posed the question because
ICANN gTLD auctions are linked to another ICANN issue. That is the
potential for ICANN to have funding to assist disadvantaged
regions or constituencies with regard to the DNS system at various
levels (gTLDs, registries, registrar, etc.). I will offer a short
paragraph of my analysis around these two linked issues, gTLD
auctions and ICANN funding for "good works".
The previous gTLD round discussion produced the option of an ICANN
gTLD auction. A small amount of funding was raised and has been
set aside while ICANN explores ways of using it. Going forward
such funding is unlikely to grow. First, the overall revenue from
the new gTLDs has been more modest than hoped for, as diminishing
marginal returns have set in. Second, for strings in contention
the contenders are resorting to private auctions, where the winner
pays the losers, and none of those proceeds accrue to ICANN. The
existence of the private auctions appears to make ICANN auctions a
moot point, an irrelevant issue, and seriously impacts on any
notion of an ICANN "good works" fund.
Sam
On 20/03/2015 6:11 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
As there has been no response to your question, I
will provide my perspective.
The language from Implementation Guideline F below
would not appear to dictate the exact method of resolution.
As you are aware, the decision to utilize auctions as the
method of last resort to resolve string contention was
arrived at through community consultation via numerous
Applicant Guidebook versions, as well as Explanatory
Memoranda specifically related to the resolution of string
contention. If this language were to remain unchanged for
subsequent New gTLD procedures, it would seem that once
again, the exact method of resolution is not being
prescribed.
I would like to note that within the
Issues/Recommendations matrix, the topic of string
contention resolution is touched on in relation to
Recommendation 2. Assuming that topic were to carry forward
to a future PDP, the working group could conceivably expand
upon the existing policy language and/or the implementation
guidelines to make the method of resolution more
prescriptive. Hopefully this helpful.
Have a great weekend.
Best,
Steve
Question and clarification:
In Column B this is offered as the process for handling
contention for strings:
- If
there is contention for strings, applicants may:
- i) resolve contention between them
within a pre-established timeframe
- ii) if there is no mutual agreement,
a claim to support a community by one party will
be a reason to award priority to that
application. If there is no such claim, and no
mutual agreement a process will be put in place
to enable efficient resolution of contention
and;
- iii) the ICANN Board may be used to
make a final decision, using advice from staff
and expert panels.
Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to
ICANN auctions for strings in contention where there
is no resolution within a pre-established time frame?
Sam L.