Dear Anne,

I know that you stated an "unusual 
"example" - in which maybe a potential objector would be forced to submit different objections 

In reality in almost all cases of contention you faced the typical "Donuts"-type of application: A VC money fueled applicant proposes to ICANN to run a standard ".com-style" generic keyword based string as new gTLD. And as long as the basic circumstances and modi of suggested gTLD operation are basically identical - so should be the objection. Obviously it would be the task of the objection provider to investigate the feasibility of a consolidation in each specific case. If the provider deems it necessary to split the objections up: they would notify ICANN and the objecting party.

Just if you are the City of Shanghai and there are 5 cookie cutter standard submissions for .shanghai which cleverly manage to skirt the necessity for a letter of non-objection from the relevant government: your 5 community objections will all be identical. And as we know objection costs may run up to $ 500k - times 5 equals $ 2.5 Million. Even for a city like Shanghai a real burden and risk.

Which brings me to the culprit of low application fee floors:
I still don't understand how we can lower the application fee floor to something irresponsible like US $25k - which then might incur potentially a US $500k objection risk to an otherwise uninvolved entity (e.g. city community). The whole notion of "cost based" application fees is indefensible if we look at the implications - yet this mantra seems to be "untouchable". In my view we need at least a minimum entrance hurdle. You can hardly buy a used three letter .com domain for US $25k - but ICANN gifts you the operation of a piece of DNS infrastructure for that amount? Just doesn't make sense. A healthy 6 figure application fee floor would be the bare minimum. We might discuss to award a portion of that amount to transaction fees over the years - say if you owe ICANN transaction fees beyond the annual minimum amount: each year you could draw e.g. US $25k from the application fee amount that exceeded the cost base. Example: we charge US $150k application fee. Once the round is fully digested  ICANN tallies up and determines that the real "cost base" was US $50k. Then for 4 years  (equaling US $100k) you could draw $25k transaction fee reduction from the "overpaid balance" (only valid for transaction fees that exceed the annual minimum transaction fee amount). That would in the end leave those who really "run" their string successfully ending up with "cost based" conditions after 4 years - but still establishes an initial entrance hurdle. 

No entrance hurdle will equal high volumes of speculative, purely defensive (brands) and unsustainable applications - resulting in an unmanageable DNS and pure chaos - not to mention further "watering down" the already struggling existing DNS-ecosystem. 

A big difference to 2012 is: by 2021 "full service agencies" will provide "flat fee all inclusive turnkey registry solutions". All a wannabe registry owner needs to do is blurting out a string (.anything) - and pay up the application fees plus a handling fee. EVERYTHING ELSE would be handled by the agency - including application creation and submission, contracting, testing and onboarding at their own white label registrar. Combined with a low application fee floor this would invite chaos. 

Tnx,

Alexander



Sent from my Samsung device


-------- Original message --------
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: 10/25/19 01:21 (GMT+02:00)
To: alexander@schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

Alexander,

·         You say “They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical.”    I’m not sure where the WG ended up on this one – was there a consensus that Objections to the same string could be consolidated even where applicants and purpose of the TLD are different?

·         I expressly included four very different purposes for the four different .sam applications in my hypothetical.  These different purposes make possible objection grounds very different indeed:

 

.sam – CPE for the (hypothetical) Society for Aviation Maintenance

 

.sam – domains for those interested in the Samurai arts

 

.sam – free speech domains for criticism/support of “Uncle Sam” – (USG)

 

.sam – for retail sales   (clearly a candidate for LRO by Sam’s Club)

 

The above should show why

(1) Not all contention sets are appropriately consolidated for Objection purposes and

(2) why it makes more sense to trigger the Objection filing deadline when a prospective winner is identified with reference to (a) passing or failing CPE, if applicable or (b) identified as having highest sealed bid

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:09 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi,

 

Regarding “objections” and their timing let’s look at the facts (we are discussing contention sets – so contention is assumed):

 

·         We have at least 2 applications in contention: likely for the identical string (though string similarity could play a factor here, too: but super seldom).

·         Likely both applications are similar: Some VC money funded applicant wants to run the TLD by “making domains available” through the registrar channel (outside of Spec 13 applications the pre

·         Now we are discussing “objections”; in all likelihood an objector would object to the notion, that some VC money funded applicant “makes domain available” through the registrar channel! Likely IRRESPECTABLY of the identity of the applicant. (exceptions might exist of course). Example would be: Two applicants want to run “.twitter” – for bird fetishists! TWITTER doesn’t like it and objects. Or two U.S. based applicants want to run “.mecca” – kind of as “.guru” surrogate: ski.mecca, diving.mecca! The KSA would object.
No it doesn’t matter to the KSA or TWITTER who wants to run .twitter or .mecca: They will simply don’t like it. Do we force them to object one applicant, then the next one gets evaluated and they need to object again? They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical.

·         So I suggest: Once an objection is being filed – that triggers the initial evaluation for ALL contention set members. And all those who pass will be subject to the objection (if the objecting party wants so). The percentage of objected strings was fairly low – so you must have a bad luck (or bad taste rather) if that happens to you.

 

Any contention set resolution can only start once we are past the stadium where objections could be filed.

Contention set resolution:

1.       In case of the ICANN Vickery “Instant Contention Set Resolution”: Any ONE applicant can trigger that; and it would result in a speedy, instant resolution. The winner would THEN be evaluated – if that fails the 2nd winner would be awarded. No evaluation failed in the 2012 round – so it’s very unlikely. After successful passing the initial evaluation the winner has to pay (just like in the former “ICANN auction of last resort); and is then on their own (has a 18 month time to contract, then a 24 month to enter the root). I don’t see that they should be able to drag it out for 3.5 years BEFORE they pay up. That would be a SIGNIFICANT change to the 2012 round. So the winner needs to pay directly after winning – not after delegation of the string.

2.       In case ALL applicants signal ICANN that they want to explore a private contention set resolution then all applicants need to be evaluated BEFORE that can happen. The result of private contention set resolution in the 2012 round was in 100% of all cases the withdrawal of applications of the losers. The “winner” had to give them “something” (usually cash; or another application; or shares, or whatnot). This only works if the winner owns an “asset”: an application that survived the initial evaluation.

 

So in case of an objection or the request of the entire contention set to be granted time to explore private contention set resolution: ALL applications of that set need to be evaluated.

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:58 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

 

There cannot be a 'winner' if there is still unlimited potential for anyone to object on any basis.  That probably would be unreasonable to take on such risk.  But if objections at least had to be lodged in some form, even if not fully briefed with evidence, then at least everyone could make some risk assessment in resolving the contention set.  I think that would encourage lots of silly lodged objections though.  And I am still not convinced this is a big enough problem warranting such a substantial change to the previously agreed, dseigned and implemented, and highly complicated and integrated processes to resolve contention and objections in a timely and reasonably foreseeable manner.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087