Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP
Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceeding/final-proceeding-for-prop...>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200431/2024-...>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112202581/2025-...>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process.
Would it make sense to consider revising the ASP Refund amount up to 100% though a very limited time once contention sets are known or some other clear milestone? This would eliminate the cost risk for an ASP applicant of losing funds which was stated as a reason why some are still not willing to apply? John From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 2:26 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceeding/final-proceeding-for-prop...>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200431/2024-...>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112202581/2025-...>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process.
I disagree with this approach. ASP applications already have less risk than other applications because of all of the financial (and other) assistance they receive. No application should be risk-free from a cost perspective as this will just encourage abuse. While the goals of the ASP program may be laudable, as I have said before, it is not a natural right to operate a TLD and not everyone should be operating a TLD. If you can’t even take the reduced cost risk associated with an ASP application then you probably can’t afford to operate a TLD, which involves with significant costs and obligations after the application period is over which isn’t covered by ASP. Creating a risk-free system for ASP applicants will result in abuse of the program and/or unqualified applicants applying for TLDs, both of which are a security and stability issue. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 360 North Green Street | Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: John Matson via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:06 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP *EXTERNAL TO GT* Would it make sense to consider revising the ASP Refund amount up to 100% though a very limited time once contention sets are known or some other clear milestone? This would eliminate the cost risk for an ASP applicant of losing funds which was stated as a reason why some are still not willing to apply? John From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 2:26 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceedin...>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
ASP applicants already go through a rigorous screening process to get approved, doesn’t that substantially reduce any chance of abuse of the system? This is for a very small set of applicants who can qualify for ASP. There are only a few in the system so far. John From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 at 10:15 AM To: John Matson <john@johnmatson.consulting>, lars.hoffmann@icann.org <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: RE: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP I disagree with this approach. ASP applications already have less risk than other applications because of all of the financial (and other) assistance they receive. No application should be risk-free from a cost perspective as this will just encourage abuse. While the goals of the ASP program may be laudable, as I have said before, it is not a natural right to operate a TLD and not everyone should be operating a TLD. If you can’t even take the reduced cost risk associated with an ASP application then you probably can’t afford to operate a TLD, which involves with significant costs and obligations after the application period is over which isn’t covered by ASP. Creating a risk-free system for ASP applicants will result in abuse of the program and/or unqualified applicants applying for TLDs, both of which are a security and stability issue. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 360 North Green Street | Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: John Matson via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:06 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP *EXTERNAL TO GT* Would it make sense to consider revising the ASP Refund amount up to 100% though a very limited time once contention sets are known or some other clear milestone? This would eliminate the cost risk for an ASP applicant of losing funds which was stated as a reason why some are still not willing to apply? John From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 2:26 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceedin...>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
I still think that if you can’t take the already reduced risk then you probably shouldn’t be operating a TLD. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 360 North Green Street | Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: John Matson <john@johnmatson.consulting> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:21 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; lars.hoffmann@icann.org; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP ASP applicants already go through a rigorous screening process to get approved, doesn’t that substantially reduce any chance of abuse of the system? This is for a very small set of applicants who can qualify for ASP. There are only a few in the system so far. John From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 at 10:15 AM To: John Matson <john@johnmatson.consulting<mailto:john@johnmatson.consulting>>, lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP I disagree with this approach. ASP applications already have less risk than other applications because of all of the financial (and other) assistance they receive. No application should be risk-free from a cost perspective as this will just encourage abuse. While the goals of the ASP program may be laudable, as I have said before, it is not a natural right to operate a TLD and not everyone should be operating a TLD. If you can’t even take the reduced cost risk associated with an ASP application then you probably can’t afford to operate a TLD, which involves with significant costs and obligations after the application period is over which isn’t covered by ASP. Creating a risk-free system for ASP applicants will result in abuse of the program and/or unqualified applicants applying for TLDs, both of which are a security and stability issue. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 360 North Green Street | Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: John Matson via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:06 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP *EXTERNAL TO GT* Would it make sense to consider revising the ASP Refund amount up to 100% though a very limited time once contention sets are known or some other clear milestone? This would eliminate the cost risk for an ASP applicant of losing funds which was stated as a reason why some are still not willing to apply? John From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 2:26 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceedin...>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
participants (3)
-
John Matson -
Lars Hoffmann -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com