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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Dec 17 02:01:05 UTC 2018


Just to agree with Alan

> On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> There is enough demand, even from TLDs that ALAC would likely support, to proceed. And it is unlikely we could stop the train even if we wanted to.
> 
> So this question for us is: Is there enough benefit for USERS to put additional focus on this particular issue, and if there is, is it one we can win.
The big question - and I am not convinced there is
> 
> I would suggest that for most of the TLDs that went to auction, we would have had an interest in only a small percentage. So perhaps this is not sufficiently a "user" issue for us to put more time into it. 
Agree
> 
> On whether we could win if we really favoured an RFP process (which as I said before I do not), I think it is too much like a "beauty contest" which ICANN will definitely not go into again after the results of the rounds earlier in the millennium.
Agree again

So back to the question - what comes out of the Consumer Trust report that we support that IS in the interests of USERS

HOLLY
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 16/12/2018 07:02 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>> Thanks Roberto
>> 
>> I think that is the issue that we are really raising when many ALAC people (including me) asked WHY are we proceeding at all.  In a sense, how new gTLDs are allocated are a subset of that larger question.  And, as we discussed on the last ALAC call, the difficulty with the new form for responding to public comments is that responses are channeled  - and to ask the larger questions is to risk having the response thrown into the bin because it doesn’t fit within the allocated slots for responses.
>> 
>> That said, can ALAC actually stop the next ‘round’ if and when there is one? If not, can we try to maximize benefits to end users - or at least mitigate harm? 
>> 
>> I agree, IDNs were the big benefit - we thought.  And maybe better support for underserved regions is another plus.  And maybe trying to ameliorate a straight auction process - as Justine was arguing for - is the right direction.  But maybe we should also look as well at other rules surrounding the use of any new gTLD - what should we be supporting on the Consumer Trust outcomes?
>> 
>> Back to Jonathan - and let’s take care on the fights we pick
>> 
>> Holly
>> 
>>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 10:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all.
>>> My opinion is that the choice of contention resolution methodology depends on the purpose of the introduction of new gTLDs.
>>> For instance, if the purpose is to maximise the circulation of money, the auction should be the winner. If the purpose is to address the underserved regions or communities, we should design a measure of “underservedness” and allocate according to these scores. And so on.
>>> The problem is that, so far, I do not understand what is the real purpose of a next round. Once upon a time, I was in strong support of new gTLDs for breaking a monopoly, but since this has happened only too late, that objective has failed a full achievement. Later on, I came to the conclusion that one major area where new TLDs could really be a game changer was IDN. However, for the reasons that we all know, the use of IDNs is not up to the expectations - and the introduction of new TLDs before we have completely solved universal acceptance limitations is not going to solve this problem.
>>> So, frankly, not having a clue on what is the primary purpose of the new round, it is difficult for me to say what would be the ideal tie breaker algorithm.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roberto
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 14.12.2018, at 23:20, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann at bachollet.fr>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello, 
>>>> Thanks for this exchange, useful and interesting.
>>>> When we talk about big pocket, it may be not the biggest but if it is not it jeopardizes the project of the winer.
>>>> It is why we need to avoid any type of auction at any level (private or run by ICANN).
>>>> Priority for specific type of applicants is important.
>>>> Insuring or enhancing diversity must be taken into account (new applicant, region with less applicants, language…).
>>>> Beauty contest was to be avoided but it has work not to badly in 2000 and 2004 round.
>>>> If needed I support Tijani idea around draw.
>>>> 
>>>> All the best
>>>> SeB 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 14 déc. 2018 à 20:35, Alexander Schubert < alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> a écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tijani,
>>>>>  
>>>>> 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 doessn’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 suffers. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 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!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Alexander Schubert (.berlin and .gay)
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: GTLD-WG [ mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 1:11 PM
>>>>> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
>>>>> Cc: cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>; cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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.
>>>>>  
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 jurisdiction.
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
>>>> 
>>>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20181217/f16fd7a3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list