I believe the concern with objections to be caused by a bad implementation of the Community and Limited Public Interest Objections in 2012 that made them both costly and unpredictable. If you limited those to only LROs and SCOs, that cost would probably not warrant the added complexity of allowing bids to be revised. That said, I don't think we need a trigger to withdraw the bid. The applicant can always withdraw the application and terminate its bid at any point before contracting, so this looks like unneeded complexity. As for revising the bid, I understand the desire given the unpredictability of the 2012 round, but the WG, IRT and ICANN Org should try getting those out of the picture instead of living with them and the complexities they bring. And I see a possible bid revision trigger as a gaming factor: if one is unsatisfied with its bid but still wants to bid something, they could arrange for an objection to filed just to allow for that. Rubens
On 2 Jan 2020, at 18:45, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Rubens, While I appreciate your point, the real issue for the bidder is not whether or not ICANN will profit. The issue for the bidder is what the registry upside is and what costs will be. For example, if it's clear the winning bidder will have to fight Objections, that's a factor that influences the bid since fighting Objections is costly and also delays launch. That's why it seems that when an Intent to Object filing is made (hopefully part of our new recommendations), the bidder should be able to withdraw or revise its bid. This should happen before there are any real costs incurred in preparing and answering actual Objections.
Would you agree? Anne
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Difference of value at application time x further down the road
In one of the arguments against submitting a bid at application time, it was said that at that time the perception of asset value would be different than after reveal day or any other milestone. The point I will make here is that this doesn't make one time better than the other for settling the contention, since ICANN is a non-profit.
The usual reasoning for giving the asset to the highest bidder is that it's a proxy for one with the better usage of the asset. But that only requires relative gauging of the contenders; if they are bidding with the same information level, at that time the best project would still be selected by the method.
So, postponing the decision could cause ICANN to make more money or less money, depending on what the new information brought to the table, but since ICANN mission is not to profit from asset allocation, we shouldn't care about it.
Other factors might play into the decision, but this shouldn't be one of them.
Rubens
________________________________
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.