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 If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline.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 If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline.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.
Hi Anne, First: Congrats on the fantasy you developed here (in a positive meaning). Simple question: Like in Jeff’s example it seems to not leave any room for private contention resolution. If there was a community priority applicant – and they triggered the CPE (which they WILL – why else agreeing to all the restrictions in the first place) – and they win CPE and no appeal or objection stops them: the case is obviously simple. So that case doesn’t need any discussion. We need to discuss contention sets where community priority doesn’t play (anymore) a role (and that’s the overwhelming majority of contention sets). Two main scenarios: 1. Private contention set resolution: The contentions set would sit together and resolve contention (in whatever way). Once they are done resolving contention all but the winner would have to withdraw their application (and usually SPEEDY – within days). But the winner would want to be sure that they pass the initial evaluation. So in 100 out of 100 cases the entire contention set WILL ask to be evaluated BEFORE they enter private contention set resolution. This WILL lead to delays – and that’s good: It creates an incentive for one of the contention set members to reject private contention (which in 2012 was in almost all cases a cash payment to the others) 2. ICANN Sealed Second-Price Auction (Vickery): Once scenario 1 doesn’t work out (the contention set doesn’t ask for evaluation) one of the contention set members can immediately after the reveal day (or once a CPE is lost in the rare cases a community priority applicant is involved) ask for the ICANN “Instant Resolution” (it’s not anymore “last resort”) – and the winner can start trading after being evaluated! This will b SO MUCH faster than waiting for all contentions set members to be evaluated – then entering in a private auction (which takes quite a bit of time and preparation). As an additional “perk” ICANN could offer the winner of any Vickery auction an instant evaluation – as further incentive! Private contention set resolution translates in almost 100% of all cases to a monetary compensation for the “loss of the asset” (application withdrawal). The easier and quicker an ICANN “Instant Resolution” is – the less entities would entertain speculative applications. When we created the policies for the first round there was the dreamy vision of applicants sitting around a fire and smoking a peace pipe – then hugging each other for prolonged periods of time before walking hand in hand into the sundown – being a happy new patchwork gTLD family. Never happened. I am not sure why we are STILL calling it “ICANN LAST RESORT” mechanism. I would rather rephrase it to “ICANN Instant Resolution”. Also: I just don’t understand why the money always has to go to ICANN. If a community owned, funded and governed effort tries to secure for example a city: they came up with the auction funds (and not some “VC”). They might not be able to go for community priority – take Oakland as example (too many Oaklands – not clearly delineated). If all the money comes from city constituents – why should ICANN pocket it? Why can’t it go to a couple of non-profits in the community that sourced the cash in the first place? This way if a couple of wealthy people in the community fund the effort – and the auction ends at 5 Million – they know at least it’s staying WITHIN THEIR community – and doesn’t go to “some” cause that is unrelated. It’s inherently unfair for ICANN to extract cash out of a community – just so they can run “their” string (again: do not conflate “community” and “community priority applicant” – these are two different things altogether: only very few communities qualify as community priority applicant!). Thoughts? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:22 AM To: 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.
Hi Alexander – I included the CPE to show what would happen with applicants if CPE fails. If so, all 4 applicants could potentially go into private resolution OR the highest bidder would proceed to the Objection phase. Again, no objection deadline should be triggered unless and until there is a winner. The 2012 process was highly wasteful where string contention existed. I have questions similar to yours as to the funds going to ICANN, but the “horse is out of the barn” on that one. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:48 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, First: Congrats on the fantasy you developed here (in a positive meaning). Simple question: Like in Jeff’s example it seems to not leave any room for private contention resolution. If there was a community priority applicant – and they triggered the CPE (which they WILL – why else agreeing to all the restrictions in the first place) – and they win CPE and no appeal or objection stops them: the case is obviously simple. So that case doesn’t need any discussion. We need to discuss contention sets where community priority doesn’t play (anymore) a role (and that’s the overwhelming majority of contention sets). Two main scenarios: 1. Private contention set resolution: The contentions set would sit together and resolve contention (in whatever way). Once they are done resolving contention all but the winner would have to withdraw their application (and usually SPEEDY – within days). But the winner would want to be sure that they pass the initial evaluation. So in 100 out of 100 cases the entire contention set WILL ask to be evaluated BEFORE they enter private contention set resolution. This WILL lead to delays – and that’s good: It creates an incentive for one of the contention set members to reject private contention (which in 2012 was in almost all cases a cash payment to the others) 2. ICANN Sealed Second-Price Auction (Vickery): Once scenario 1 doesn’t work out (the contention set doesn’t ask for evaluation) one of the contention set members can immediately after the reveal day (or once a CPE is lost in the rare cases a community priority applicant is involved) ask for the ICANN “Instant Resolution” (it’s not anymore “last resort”) – and the winner can start trading after being evaluated! This will b SO MUCH faster than waiting for all contentions set members to be evaluated – then entering in a private auction (which takes quite a bit of time and preparation). As an additional “perk” ICANN could offer the winner of any Vickery auction an instant evaluation – as further incentive! Private contention set resolution translates in almost 100% of all cases to a monetary compensation for the “loss of the asset” (application withdrawal). The easier and quicker an ICANN “Instant Resolution” is – the less entities would entertain speculative applications. When we created the policies for the first round there was the dreamy vision of applicants sitting around a fire and smoking a peace pipe – then hugging each other for prolonged periods of time before walking hand in hand into the sundown – being a happy new patchwork gTLD family. Never happened. I am not sure why we are STILL calling it “ICANN LAST RESORT” mechanism. I would rather rephrase it to “ICANN Instant Resolution”. Also: I just don’t understand why the money always has to go to ICANN. If a community owned, funded and governed effort tries to secure for example a city: they came up with the auction funds (and not some “VC”). They might not be able to go for community priority – take Oakland as example (too many Oaklands – not clearly delineated). If all the money comes from city constituents – why should ICANN pocket it? Why can’t it go to a couple of non-profits in the community that sourced the cash in the first place? This way if a couple of wealthy people in the community fund the effort – and the auction ends at 5 Million – they know at least it’s staying WITHIN THEIR community – and doesn’t go to “some” cause that is unrelated. It’s inherently unfair for ICANN to extract cash out of a community – just so they can run “their” string (again: do not conflate “community” and “community priority applicant” – these are two different things altogether: only very few communities qualify as community priority applicant!). Thoughts? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:22 AM 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. ________________________________ 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.
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> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM To: 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.
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> 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> *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM *To:* 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 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.
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> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 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.
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.
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 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
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> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 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
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg < 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> *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM *To:* 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 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.
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 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: 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 <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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 [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.
Unfinished side sentence: “outside of Spec 13 applications the pre” Was to be meant: “outside of Spec 13 applications the prevalent application type was exactly that: make domains available for the general public via registrar channel. So mostly we had cookie cutter applications.” From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 2:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal 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 <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto: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 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: 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 <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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 [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.
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<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: 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<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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 [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. ________________________________ 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.
Mike - It’s definitely about avoiding a secondary market in TLDs on a “buy low, sell high” basis. The prices for TLDs will come down – especially for “cookie cutter” applications listing only pre-approved services. The policy being made now will affect how this goes into the distant future. Right now there is plenty of speculation/secondary market making in domain names at the second level. Many registrars are fully engaged in that business. When application fees come down, there is a danger that this practice will spread to TLDs themselves. Kristine – my hypo assumed that financial and technical evaluation would proceed on applications in the regular schedule, especially since there may be pre-qualified RSPs etc. I was definitely trying to avoid triggering a deadline to file Objections on applications that “lose” the bid (or lose out after private resolution of a contention set) because that would mean numerous wasteful Objection filings. In other words, the Objection deadline should only be triggered when the winner is identified. If the Objection succeeds and is upheld on appeal, then move on to the next highest bidder and trigger the Objection deadline as to that bidder. It doesn’t make sense for Sam’s Club to file four LROs in the case of string contention where there will ultimately be only be one winner. Trademark holders (and other Objectors) shouldn’t have to file against every string in the contention set . That wastes everyone’s resources. And depending on the purpose of the TLD, an LRO may not be justified on grounds of likelihood of confusion. In this regard, I tried to give three examples that would be unlikely candidates for LRO, but in any case, it makes no sense to trigger Objection deadlines for strings that will never go beyond the initial valuation stage. This was a flaw in the 2012 system. Anne From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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.
That's a highly speculative 'danger' you seem to be fearing. Is anyone else worried about that? Have there been any examples of that to date? I do not think that is a problem in need of discussion or solution. I do agree it is a problem that objections must be lodged and resolved before contention sets can be resolved. It is wasteful and leads to inconsistent decisions, albeit only rarely to date. I do not immediately see a solution to that problem. Forgive me if it's already been proposed by anyone, but could they succinctly restate it now? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:32 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Mike - It’s definitely about avoiding a secondary market in TLDs on a “buy low, sell high” basis. The prices for TLDs will come down – especially for “cookie cutter” applications listing only pre-approved services. The policy being made now will affect how this goes into the distant future. Right now there is plenty of speculation/secondary market making in domain names at the second level. Many registrars are fully engaged in that business. When application fees come down, there is a danger that this practice will spread to TLDs themselves.
Kristine – my hypo assumed that financial and technical evaluation would proceed on applications in the regular schedule, especially since there may be pre-qualified RSPs etc. I was definitely trying to avoid triggering a deadline to file Objections on applications that “lose” the bid (or lose out after private resolution of a contention set) because that would mean numerous wasteful Objection filings. In other words, the Objection deadline should only be triggered when the winner is identified. If the Objection succeeds and is upheld on appeal, then move on to the next highest bidder and trigger the Objection deadline as to that bidder. It doesn’t make sense for Sam’s Club to file four LROs in the case of string contention where there will ultimately be only be one winner.
Trademark holders (and other Objectors) shouldn’t have to file against every string in the contention set . That wastes everyone’s resources. And depending on the purpose of the TLD, an LRO may not be justified on grounds of likelihood of confusion. In this regard, I tried to give three examples that would be unlikely candidates for LRO, but in any case, it makes no sense to trigger Objection deadlines for strings that will never go beyond the initial valuation stage. This was a flaw in the 2012 system.
Anne
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal
*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------
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
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg < 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> *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM *To:* 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 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.
Mike, We can look at various contention sets but I had one client that had to file 7 Objections against a string that had 7 applicants – very expensive for all concerned – just ridiculous. Anne From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:54 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ That's a highly speculative 'danger' you seem to be fearing. Is anyone else worried about that? Have there been any examples of that to date? I do not think that is a problem in need of discussion or solution. I do agree it is a problem that objections must be lodged and resolved before contention sets can be resolved. It is wasteful and leads to inconsistent decisions, albeit only rarely to date. I do not immediately see a solution to that problem. Forgive me if it's already been proposed by anyone, but could they succinctly restate it now? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:32 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Mike - It’s definitely about avoiding a secondary market in TLDs on a “buy low, sell high” basis. The prices for TLDs will come down – especially for “cookie cutter” applications listing only pre-approved services. The policy being made now will affect how this goes into the distant future. Right now there is plenty of speculation/secondary market making in domain names at the second level. Many registrars are fully engaged in that business. When application fees come down, there is a danger that this practice will spread to TLDs themselves. Kristine – my hypo assumed that financial and technical evaluation would proceed on applications in the regular schedule, especially since there may be pre-qualified RSPs etc. I was definitely trying to avoid triggering a deadline to file Objections on applications that “lose” the bid (or lose out after private resolution of a contention set) because that would mean numerous wasteful Objection filings. In other words, the Objection deadline should only be triggered when the winner is identified. If the Objection succeeds and is upheld on appeal, then move on to the next highest bidder and trigger the Objection deadline as to that bidder. It doesn’t make sense for Sam’s Club to file four LROs in the case of string contention where there will ultimately be only be one winner. Trademark holders (and other Objectors) shouldn’t have to file against every string in the contention set . That wastes everyone’s resources. And depending on the purpose of the TLD, an LRO may not be justified on grounds of likelihood of confusion. In this regard, I tried to give three examples that would be unlikely candidates for LRO, but in any case, it makes no sense to trigger Objection deadlines for strings that will never go beyond the initial valuation stage. This was a flaw in the 2012 system. Anne 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 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Dorrain, Kristine -
Mike Rodenbaugh