[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: Calltfortfeedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to NewtgTLDtSubsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report

[Holly Raiche]

I’m afraid I am with Jonathan and Alan on this one.  Have we really worked through what an RFP would look like/be administered?  Maybe a bold statement looks terrific, but Justine has spent a lot of time and effort working through how a process could be modified to accommodate our concerns (well done Justine) - and as Alan points out, have we really tested an RFP regime enough - against the benefits to the end user - such that we are confident in its benefits?

Holly

> On Dec 17, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
> 
> I think we really need to choose our battles in this one and that doesn't include changing the whole program over...
> 
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:37:38 PM
> To: cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
>  
> Hi,
> 
> To that point (RFP-type of solution):
> 
> It seems that in the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases it has been "portfolio applicants" squaring off against each other; and they just wanted a "fair compensation" for "giving up their asset". All of them are the same "good" or "bad": they make the TLD available via registrar channel.
> 
> Only a very small percentage of contention sets ended up at the ICANN last resort love-fest. So I think these few cases could be resolved in a RFP style way.......
> 
> The question is: Even if ALAC is in agreement with such stipulation; how to convince the rest of ICANN?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gordon Chillcott
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:16 PM
> To: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Cc: cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
> 
> 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 <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> > Pour memoire
> > 
> > CW
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <mailto: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/cpwg/attachments/20181217/c8a5f0fa/attachment.html>