<div dir="ltr">This seems like nothing more than a "Hail Mary:" to try to overturn the obvious conclusion that there was no consensus to recommend that private auctions be outlawed. Indeed, there was not even consensus that there was any problem whatsoever caused by private auctions.<div><br></div><div>There is no draft recommendation text anywhere in the report, much less factual rationale, to support the notion that private auctions be outlawed, yet Jim is suggesting there is consensus on that HUGE point?<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span><br></span></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span>Does it not take more than one person to raise a challenge like this?</span></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span><br></span></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span>Thanks,</span></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span>Mike<br><div dir="ltr" style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><table style="border:none;border-collapse:collapse"><colgroup><col width="203"><col width="86"><col width="335"></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:20.25pt"><td rowspan="4" style="border-right:0.75pt solid rgb(0,133,61);vertical-align:middle;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:center;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="border:none;display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;width:159px;height:95px"><img alt="Logo" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/S_Oxvn9Vep0rF8IVyiOnDwA4LymtHrWirggIxlsU26JihhEYDv5A5D03ZY0k_npND2t8xfiWCdTM5NTO_LSZMksjO_UlJm5IAP3FEi5cw96AwIPgVzvoOfHIux_qNA26n5UuxvQZ" width="159" height="95" style="margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px"></span></span></p></td><td colspan="2" style="border-left:0.75pt solid rgb(0,133,61);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:3.6pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,133,61);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Mike Rodenbaugh</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:18pt"><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:3.6pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,133,61);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">address:</span></p></td><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.53;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">548 Market Street, Box 55819</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.53;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">San Francisco, CA 94104</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:12.75pt"><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:3.6pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,133,61);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">email:</span></p></td><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.53;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><a href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com" target="_blank">mike@rodenbaugh.com</a></span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:24pt"><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:3.6pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,133,61);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">phone:</span></p></td><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.53;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">+1 (415) 738-8087</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:46 PM Jim Prendergast <<a href="mailto:jim@galwaysg.com">jim@galwaysg.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-7105118035310695127WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Cheryl and Jeff <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Thanks for the call yesterday explaining the process by which you made consensus designations. I appreciated the tremendous effort that went into this exercise.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Purpose of this email is to challenge the designation of Recommendation 35.2 which is currently deemed Consensus. While I may refer to determinations for recommendations, it is not my intent to challenge
those with this email. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">For reference, 35.2 reads as follows<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:12pt">Recommendation 35.2: Consistent with the Application Change processes set forth under Topic 20: Application Change Requests, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) must reflect that applicants
will be permitted to creatively resolve contention sets in a multitude of manners, including but not limited to business combinations or other forms of joint ventures and private resolutions (including private auctions).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:12pt">• All private resolutions reached by means of forming business combinations or other joint ventures resulting in the withdrawal of one or more applications are subject to the Application
Change processes set forth under Topic 20: Application Change Requests.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:12pt">• Any materially modified application resulting from a private resolution will be subject to a new operational comment period on the changes as well as a new period to file objections;
provided however, objections during this new period must be of the type that arise due to the changing circumstances of the application and not merely the type of objection that could have been filed against the surviving application or the withdrawn applications
in the contention set during the initial objection filing period.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:12pt">•All contention sets resolved through private resolution shall adhere to the transparency requirements set forth in the Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements in the relevant
recommendation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">My challenge touches on the following points – inconsistency of determinations between recommendations and
<a name="m_-7105118035310695127__Hlk61437132">Leadership’s desire to preserve other parts of the recommendation</a>.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt">Inconsistent determinations<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">In discussing the determination to classify recommendation 35.4 as Strong Support but Significant Opposition, Leadership talked about the number comments received, the diversity of those comments and a consultation
of public comments. Further examination shows that the majority the 11 comments on the consensus call came from members of the IPC which should not surprise anyone as they also filed a
</span><span style="font-size:12pt"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1091535370" target="_blank">public comment</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt"> on this. The only other comment on this recommendation
was a support of the IPC response to Public Comment by PETILLION Law Firm, an IPC member. The balance of the consensus call comments came from individuals, RySG members and an ALAC member.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Compare that to the comments that came in on 35.2. While there may not been the same number of emails that came in on 35.4, you had more diversity than what was accepted for 35.4. There were consensus call
responses from individuals as well as members of the ALAC, RySG, and the GAC. In the public comments, you had opposition to Private auctions from the following ICANN SO/AC/SGs
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="gmail-m_-7105118035310695127MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:black;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:106%;color:windowtext">Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group - “…</span><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:106%">we support the move to set aside private actions.” “Private auctions should simply be banned, and other
solutions such as Vickrey auctions and “sealed bid, second price auctions” through the ICANN-run auction process should be adopted for the fairness and integrity of the auction process.”<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-7105118035310695127MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:black;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:106%">Business Constituency - "As we said in 2018, the BC recommends that private auctions be eliminated.”<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-7105118035310695127MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:black;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:106%">At-Large Advisory Committee - The ALAC remains concerned about efforts to “game” the application process, in part, through the use of private auctions. We disagree with the SubPro WG recommendation to allow them
and believe that attempts to determine “good faith” will ultimately be little more than window dressing. Further, the proposed “sealed bid, second price auction” compromise, while superior to the status quo, represents a highly watered down version of the
far superior traditional Vickrey auction. The ALAC implore the working group to revisit the prohibition of private auctions and implement a true Vickrey auction solution.”<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">When asked if leadership had consulted these responses to the public comments, we were told that unless someone from one of those SO/ACs/SGs specifically replied on the consensus call, they were
not consulted. By that standard, the opposition from the Business Constituency and the NCSG was ignored and not used to calculate the designation.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">This discounting of a comment from a SO/AC/SG is especially troubling because as many in this this working group have said, as an individual, we cannot speak for an SO/AC/SG but when the SO/AC/SG
does speak, like the NCSG, BC and ALAC have, it should carry weight. Many of us also know how difficult it is to get a diverse group of voices within an SO/AC/SG to agree to submit a statement on behalf of the entire group. To hear these were not considered
is disappointing.</span><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt">Leadership’s desire to preserve other parts of the recommendation
<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">During our discussion, I agreed with Leadership’s assertion that there was not opposition in spirit to the ability to settle contention sets via “private resolution” which could include joint ventures and
other arrangements as well as all the other provisions included in the recommendation. But the drafting of the recommendation and the inclusion of “and private resolutions (including private auctions)” poisons the entire recommendation.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">I understand the desire of leadership to not have to discard what are very good recommendations but in response to leadership’s direction to be very specific, people were specific in their opposition to private
auctions and not to the entire recommendation. If WG members had known that we had to object to the entire recommendation, as opposed to being specific, the responses would have been different. I fear that in a desire to preserve the rest of the recommendation,
leadership is discounting the opposition to Private Auctions. While understandable, that potential bias cannot stand.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Thanks for your consideration.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Jim Prendergast<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">The Galway Strategy Group<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><a href="mailto:jim@galwaysg.com" target="_blank">jim@galwaysg.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">+1 202-285-3699<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">@jimpren<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote></div>