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

Sun Dec 16 23:35:34 UTC 2018

I also think it is now too late to throw this one into the package -- 
too many loose ends we haven't considered.

Marita

On 12/16/2018 6:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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] 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> 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
>>
>> Working Group direct 
>> URL: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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Working Group direct 
>> URL: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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181216/39380bb6/attachment-0001.html>