[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Auctions // At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Fri Dec 14 19:35:05 UTC 2018



While I share your resentment against ICANN auctions – I do not see that
“the richest will win”. There have been auctions where multi-billion
corporations lost.


Look at it from other perspectives:

*         Those who do NOT have access to financial resources will lose! 

*         Those whose business model allows only a certain investment will
lose (even IF they could bring up the cash – at some point the business
model doesn’t carry it anymore).

*         In  the end it is those who are planning to RUTHLESSLY exploit the
new namespace (the new gTLD) AND have access to money will win! Those who do
not care about the registrants and the Internet users, those who sell
“premium domain names” to the “highest bidder”: not to the entity that will
use it best!

*         What the ICANN community wants is a balanced, longtail solution
based, sustainable namespace management! That implies: lower profits! It’s
like with a wood: you can either care about the nature, and the wellbeing of
animals and the wood; or you radically deforest and “make money”. Someone
who auctions of a forest and then deforests it can still make money – but
the forest doesn’t like it! The animals in the forest will suffer. Nature


But the worst about the ICANN auction is: The future registrants are being
forced to pay off a “tax” that was artificially assigned by ICANN: The
“auction tax” so to speak. And what do they get in return? NOTHING! These
amounts could be used to market the TLD – to create outreach, to foster some
gTLD “brand”-recognition. 

In the case of “non-profit” gTLDs (I have launched a non-profit gTLD
applicant entity for the 2020 round over a year ago already) it gets even
WORSE: As a non-profit EVERY SINGLE CENT that is going into auction will be
“taken” from the target community; one way or other. It’s not that your
“profits” are diminished: there are no profits anyways.

Non-profit, public-benefit, community applicants should be exempt from the
auction. And note that most community applicants did NOT win the CPE!



Alexander Schubert (.berlin and .gay)




From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: cpwg at icann.org; cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Auctions // At-Large/ALAC positions to New
gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report


Yes Olivier, we need to discuss it.


I have always been against the auction as a mean for contention resolution.
The reason is that the winner would be the richest. I remember in Mexico
(2009) I said any other mean will be better even if it is a random draw
because in this case rich and poor people will be on the same footing. The
only advantage of the auction option is that money will enter ICANN account.


As Seun rightly noticed, even an RFP would need evaluation, and if there is
a tie (both applicants have equal evaluation score), we find ourselves in
the same situation. 

I would prefer that Community application have priority, and more evidently,
applications that passed the Applicant Support program evaluation, and thus,
they don’t compete with the other applicants in case of contention. 


Now, when we have sting contention between 2 Community applications  (or 2
Supported applications), or between a community application and a supported
one, we will be in a tied situation too.


To solve all these tied situations, we may find a criterion such as the
application coming from the most underserved region wins or any other
criterion. In case there is none, we may proceed to a random draw.


This is what I prefer, but I know it’s not easy to implement. 


I find Justine proposal a way to mitigate the harm a little bit, but it is
far from eliminating it.




Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone: +216 98 330 114

            +216 52 385 114



Le 14 déc. 2018 à 09:45, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
<mailto:ocl at gih.com> > a écrit :


2.1.c.1    In general I do not support auctions They favour the parties with
the 'deepest pockets'. They also burden the successful applicant with
financial liabilities, particularly if the auction has been financed by debt
or third party investment. Those additional costs will be passed on to the
eventual registrants through fees and charges.

It would be better if TLD registries were operated on a not-for-profit basis
in the public interest. This would also reduce the financial incentive not
to cooperate and to go to a forced auction.


2.1.d.2.1    Agreed. The RFP options should be thoroughly explored and
codified. In the case of geographical TLDs the RFP should be undertaken by
the public authority or other responsible entity in the geography concerned.
The successful applicant's registry should be incorporated in that


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20181214/41892325/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list