[Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Contention for strings

[Sam Lanfranco]

Steve,

Thank you for your response. I had posed the question because ICANN gTLD 
auctions are linked to another ICANN issue. That is the potential for 
ICANN to have funding to assist disadvantaged regions or constituencies 
with regard to the DNS system at various levels (gTLDs, registries, 
registrar, etc.).  I will offer a short paragraph of my analysis around 
these two linked issues, gTLD auctions and ICANN funding for "good works".

The previous gTLD round discussion produced the option of an ICANN gTLD 
auction. A small amount of funding was raised and has been set aside 
while ICANN explores ways of using it. Going forward such funding is 
unlikely to grow. First, the overall revenue from the new gTLDs has been 
more modest than hoped for, as diminishing marginal returns have set in. 
Second, for strings in contention the contenders are resorting to 
private auctions, where the winner pays the losers, and none of those 
proceeds accrue to ICANN. The existence of the private auctions appears 
to make ICANN auctions a moot point, an irrelevant issue, and seriously 
impacts on any notion of an ICANN "good works" fund.

Sam

/On 20/03/2015 6:11 PM, Steve Chan wrote://
/
> /Sam,/
> /
> /
> /As there has been no response to your question, I will provide my 
> perspective./
> /
> /
> /The language from Implementation Guideline F below would not appear 
> to dictate the exact method of resolution. As you are aware, the 
> decision to utilize auctions as the method of last resort to resolve 
> string contention was arrived at through community consultation via 
> numerous Applicant Guidebook versions, as well as Explanatory 
> Memoranda specifically related to the resolution of string contention. 
> If this language were to remain unchanged for subsequent New gTLD 
> procedures, it would seem that once again, the exact method of 
> resolution is not being prescribed./
> /
> /
> /I would like to note that within the Issues/Recommendations matrix, 
> the topic of string contention resolution is touched on in relation to 
> Recommendation 2. Assuming that topic were to carry forward to a 
> future PDP, the working group could conceivably expand upon the 
> existing policy language and/or the implementation guidelines to make 
> the method of resolution more prescriptive. Hopefully this helpful./
> /
> /
> /Have a great weekend./
> /
> /
> /Best,/
> /Steve/
>
> From: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM
> To: "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Contention for strings
>
> Question and clarification:
>
> In Column B this is offered as the process for handling contention for 
> strings:
>
>   * If there is contention for strings, applicants may:
>       o i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established
>         timeframe
>       o ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a
>         community by one party will be a reason to award priority to
>         that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual
>         agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient
>         resolution of contention and;
>       o iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision,
>         using advice from staff and expert panels.
>
> Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to ICANN auctions for 
> strings in contention where there is no resolution within a 
> pre-established time frame?
>
> Sam L.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150322/047bf723/attachment.html>