<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I have significant suggested changes to the private auction section in the attached. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of private auctions vs. other types of private resolutions in the 2012 round. If the WG wants to forbid all private resolutions and require an auction of last resort, it could do so as a matter of policy. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don't see how, however, the WG could bad one form of private resolution and not any others. If just private auctions are banned, then the applicants will come up with another way to pay each other. In a simple example take a contention set with only two applicants, the parties could simply negotiate a sale; could flip a coin with the loser to pay a pre-determined amount; could do a cut and choose option; could do a swap if there were more than one TLDs in contention between the parties, etc. There are dozens of creative ways to resolve contention sets without a private auction. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In other words, if the WG wants all the money to go to ICANN or charity, it needs to ban all private resolutions (not just private auctions). Just banning private auctions would be like just banning one flavor of ice cream.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The question is whether the WG has a consensus to ban private resolution and force auctions of last resort or some other means to resolve contention. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jon</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>