Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren
Thanks very much for this text Jim, appreciated... On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 16:54 Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report.
Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: *Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… *
*With the Following ……*
While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic:
*ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values.
*IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions.
*ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw).
*RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis.
The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward.
Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place.
Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined.
We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient.
The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place.
Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
jim@galwaysg.com
+1 202-285-3699
@jimpren
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren
Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may - the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: "The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions....." While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren
Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not including them in the report. Im ok with this change. From: Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may - the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: "The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions....." While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren
I support this language. No objection. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D469AE.56C58C00] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:41 AM To: Langstone, Sarah; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not including them in the report. Im ok with this change. From: Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com<mailto:slangstone@Verisign.com>> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may - the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: "The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize "gaming" or abuse of private auctions....." While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren ________________________________ 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.
Excellent, thanks team.😊 On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:24 Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I support this language. No objection.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim Prendergast *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:41 AM *To:* Langstone, Sarah; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not including them in the report.
Im ok with this change.
*From:* Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM *To:* jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Thanks Jim
Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question:
2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented?
A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with:
“The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions…..”
While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report,
Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships
Verisign Inc
This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday.
*Jeff Neuman*
Senior Vice President
*Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514
T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
E: *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>* www.comlaude.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jim Prendergast *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report.
Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: *Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… *
*With the Following ……*
While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic:
*ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values.
*IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions.
*ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw).
*RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis.
The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward.
Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place.
Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined.
We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient.
The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place.
Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
jim@galwaysg.com
+1 202-285-3699
@jimpren
------------------------------
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
I support these changes. No objection. Anne Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet ------ Original message------ From: Jim Prendergast Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2018 9:42 AM To: Langstone, Sarah;jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Cc: Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not including them in the report. Im ok with this change. From: Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: “The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions…..” While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… With the Following …… While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren ________________________________ 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.
I have no objections to the what Jim has proposed as amended by Sarah. Thank you both for the same. Justine Chew ----- On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 15:45 Aikman-Scalese, Anne, <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I support these changes. No objection. Anne
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
------ Original message------ *From: *Jim Prendergast *Date: *Sun, Oct 21, 2018 9:42 AM *To: *Langstone, Sarah;jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; *Cc: * *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not including them in the report.
Im ok with this change.
*From:* Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM *To:* jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Thanks Jim
Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question:
2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented?
A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with:
“The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions…..”
While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report,
Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships
Verisign Inc
This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday.
*Jeff Neuman*
Senior Vice President
*Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514
T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
E: *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>* www.comlaude.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jim Prendergast *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report.
Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: *Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… *
*With the Following ……*
While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic:
*ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values.
*IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions.
*ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw).
*RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> *
The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis.
The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward.
Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place.
Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined.
We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient.
The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place.
Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
jim@galwaysg.com
+1 202-285-3699
@jimpren
------------------------------
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
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Jeff Neuman -
Jim Prendergast -
Justine Chew -
Langstone, Sarah