Whatever else you might want to say, it seems to me ridiculously wasteful to trigger Objection filing deadlines on all applicants in a string contention set when only one (or a combination if a JV is formed via private resolution) is going to win out. Objection filing deadlines should not be triggered until the winner is clear. Then other applicants can stay in line if they want to wait out the Objection process – but apparently only if that privilege is agreed via private resolution? From: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Sorry, my text was in red after my intro “Donna clarified” sentence. I do NOT believe “speculation in TLDs” is either defined or a problem to be prevented. I should have noted. My edits in RED. (Also, I think I was capturing Donna’s points, but invite correction if I got it wrong.) Kristine From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal Thanks Kristine. You refer to the purported problem as " to Avoid Speculation in TLDs." I don't know how we mean to define "speculation" and whether that is a bad thing. Until you define the thing it is you are trying to prevent, and why it is such a bad thing that we should try to prevent it, it is impossible to try to solve against it. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, Donna clarified, and I seconded (but only to the extent that we’re entertaining ideas ahead of Kurt, and Mike ,and others’, entirely reasonable request for more clarity around the problem we’re solving for because I agree we’re all guessing), the idea that the bidding plays no role until the applicants are ready for an auction of last resort. So, to my mind, it looks like this instead - String Contention Proposal to Avoid Speculation in TLDs 4 applications for .sam string – contention set and parties not revealed on application date. Per Donna's suggestion, parties are all 4 notified of string contention and asked to submit sealed bids. Sealed bids received. (Some may drop out.) Application 1 is a Community Application for .sam for the "Society for Aviation Maintenance". All worldwide aviation maintenance unions back this application. Public comment is sought. At this point, the other applicants know there is a CPE application but their bids are already in. Should private resolution be permitted at this point or not? Only if all four parties agree, but it’s looking good for applicant 1, so they’ll probably stick it out and take their chances with evaluation. A. CPE Pass leads to Appeal. If sustained, Application 1 wins. If overturned, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. (It's still possible for this application to be the highest bidder even if it fails CPE.) continue evaluating 3 non-Community applications. B. CPE Fail leads to Appeal. If overturned, Application 1 wins. If CPE Fail is sustained, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. continue evaluating 3 non-Community applications Application 2 for .sam Purpose: Dedicated to domains for those interested in the Samurai arts. Application 3 for .sam Purpose: Free speech on the pros and cons of Uncle Sam (USG) Application 4 for .sam Purpose: Retail sales (is Sam’s Club the applicant?). Assume CPE for Application 1 fails and that Application 4 submitted the highest sealed bid. Solicit public comment on Application 4 and the Objection deadline is triggered. And that all other applications pass initial evaluation. Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner.any or all of the other three applications until the appeals are concluded. A.LRO Success leads to Appeal. If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. If LRO success is overturned, Application 4 wins .sam. B. LRO Failure leads to Appeal. If failed LRO upheld on appeal, Application 4 wins .sam. If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. All surviving applicants have the opportunity to privately resolve their contention set. If any applicant does not wish to privately resolve the contention set , then we move to the auction of last resort (or “instant resolution”). ICANN opens the bids and awards the TLD to the highest bidding remaining application, who pays the amount bid by the remaining applicant with the second highest bid. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: String Contention Proposal ________________________________ Regarding Tuesday’s call (Monday night in the US), I am offering the following hypothetical based on Donna’s suggestion to collect sealed bids prior to a reveal of the contention set. String Contention Proposal to Avoid Speculation in TLDs 4 applications for .sam string – contention set and parties not revealed on application date. Per Donna's suggestion, parties are all 4 notified of string contention and asked to submit sealed bids. Sealed bids received. (Some may drop out.) Application 1 is a Community Application for .sam for the "Society for Aviation Maintenance". All worldwide aviation maintenance unions back this application. Public comment is sought. At this point, the other applicants know there is a CPE application but their bids are already in. Should private resolution be permitted at this point or not? A. CPE Pass leads to Appeal. If sustained, Application 1 wins. If overturned, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. (It's still possible for this application to be the highest bidder even if it fails CPE.) B. CPE Fail leads to Appeal. If overturned, Application 1 wins. If CPE Fail is sustained, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. Application 2 for .sam Purpose: Dedicated to domains for those interested in the Samurai arts. Application 3 for .sam Purpose: Free speech on the pros and cons of Uncle Sam (USG) Application 4 for .sam Purpose: Retail sales. Assume CPE for Application 1 fails and that Application 4 submitted the highest sealed bid. Solicit public comment on Application 4 and the Objection deadline is triggered. Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner. A.LRO Success leads to Appeal. If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. If LRO success is overturned, Application 4 wins .sam. B. LRO Failure leads to Appeal. If failed LRO upheld on appeal, Application 4 wins .sam. If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.