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

[Maureen Hilyard]

+1 Marita, Holly et al  There has been a lot of time and effort that has
gone into what we have already agreed to. Its too late to bring up anything
new.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:35 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> 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>
> 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> on behalf of
> Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:37:38 PM
> *To:* 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
> <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
> Cc: 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 wrote:
> > Pour memoire
> >
> > CW
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c1303418/attachment.html>