Jamie You are, of course, correct and I should have recognised that nuance. I just remember the day of the 2012 string reveal in London where applicants of all persuasions were there in the room, aghast or relieved or some other visceral emotion, at the contention sets. And then thoughts immediately turned to how to resolve those contentions... Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 5:49 pm, Jamie Baxter <jamie@dotgay.com> wrote:
Hey all ..
I think it is important to be careful with asserting that gaming could not start until the "reveal of potentially competing strings." Unlike standard applications, community applications by design have a very public element to them prior to reveal day. Community applications require stakeholder engagement and endorsement, which is not always possible to keep as private as the intentions behind a standard application. From my experience as a community applicant, I would actually assert that gaming can start prior to the reveal of potentially competing strings.
The struggles community applications experienced in CPE make them an even larger target to being part of "competing strings" in subsequent rounds if status quo on CPE process is maintained. This is not a comment on the use or mis-use of auctions for contention resolution, just a reminder that not all applications are created equal in the lead up to reveal day or how they are subject to gaming.
Cheers Jamie
Jamie Baxter VP of Marketing 212-235-5154 jamie@dotgay.com <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/>
Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Tue, October 09, 2018 12:08 pm To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com <mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com>>, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Liz,
Please see responses below your questions in red.
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:54 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Hello everyone
I was listening carefully to the conversation yesterday about the use of auctions (private or ICANN last resort) yesterday and thought it may be useful to consider a few other elements.
1. If there are no auctions, how does one objectively resolve contention sets? As we know, auctions are used widely to resolve "contention sets” for everything from Banksy artworks, racehorses and houses. They are an effective and quick mechanism that demonstrates immediate clarity about who is a winner. If we don’t have an auction option, we are left with a rather big mess to sort out because there will be contention again.
[Jeff] In Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the draft Supplemental Initial Report (a new version to come out shortly), you will see that there are a number of mechanisms that are options. Rather than engage in a new substantive dialogue on this issue now, please refer to the draft and let us know if there are additional questions that need to be added.
2. Are we being cautious because we weren’t/aren’t satisfied with the use of auction proceeds and that rather large amount of cash sitting on ICANN’s balance sheet? Likely yes but that doesn’t mean that auctions are a bad thing. It means we have to improve the distribution for last resort auction proceeds.
[Jeff] Though there is a reference in section 1.1 of the Supplemental Initial Report to the Cross Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds and wanting to see those recommendations before opining on future ICANN Auctions, most of Sections 1.1 and 1.2 on Auctions are not really aimed at being satisfied at the use of auction proceeds, but rather on the processes involved, the tendency to favor big players, the use of private auctions to fund other applications, etc. Other than that, the distribution of funds is not really an issue we are considering in this group.
3. Are we worried about “big bucks squashing out smaller players”? Again, likely yes but we don’t have a reasonable alternative that solves the issue of contention. Some suggested that applicants “gamed” a contention set. That was impossible until the reveal of potentially competing strings. Should there be a reveal at all in the early stages? Likely yes because we want to give applicants the option of opting out early in the process if they see who their competitors are and the likelihood of winning a bi/multi lateral negotiation or an auction.
[Jeff] One of the concerns expressed is consistent with your comments, but there are a number of other concerns that are listed in Supplemental Initial Report. In addition, there are also other options presented which we should not yet jump to the conclusion (prior to any public comment) that they are not “reasonable alternatives”.
The group has not discussed the possibility of “not revealing” the applications at the early stage. In addition to the reason against not disclosing applications that you indicate, if we did not reveal the strings or the applicants, then objecting or filing disputes, along with public comments would not be possible.
4. Some have suggested that some applicants “profited” from auctions. Yes, that is the nature of auctions. But what wasn’t anticipated that “losing” at auction became a windfall of operating cash for some applicants and were, in some cases, the only way an applicant recouped any of the investment in their application. Not sure how we deal with this or if we should even be concerned about it as long as applicants know what they are in for at the beginning of the process.
[Jeff] The purpose of putting these alternatives out for comment in the Supplemental Initial Report is to test whether the community is concerned and whether or not there are alternatives to the use of private auctions / private resolution. We will have much more information after the public comment period to determine whether there are concerns or not and how we can reasonably deal with the concerns (if any).
Looking forward to hearing other’s views.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net <http://www.lizwilliams.net/> S: lizwilliams1963
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 4:56 am, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote:
<jnNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>