[CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report

[Gordon Chillcott]

Christopher:

Although I am not a fan of the idea of an auction of any type, I am
warming to the idea that this might be the most feasible alternative.

Of the other candidate solutions, the best would probably be the Request
for Proposal (RFP) route.  This would answer the one question that
auctions are weakest on - how is this applicant qualified to operate
this particular TLD?

Having said that, Requests for Proposal would need to be quite carefully
crafted.      Criteria for selection of an applicant would need to be
carefully and specifically described in order to measure the applicant
against the purpose of the new TLD.  This is not easy and, in fact, can
be expensive. 

Collection and evaluation of the responses, which is going to involve
carefully measuring the response  against the RFP's  criteria to find
“the best fit”   .is another effort that  would need to be considered
and costed out.

Part of that cost, by the way, is the time required to develop the RFP,
collect the responses and evaluate them – all of which contribute to the
length of time needed to make a decision.   

My own experience suggests that these costs would  need to be examined
and compared to the cost of an auction of whatever type.


Gordon Chillcott
Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group

On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 21:28 +0100, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
> Pour memoire
> 
> CW
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg