[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC

[Alexander Schubert]

Well,

 

If you would just ban chocolate ice-cream, then that would do the trick for
me personally.

But Jon is right:

For the overwhelming portion of applicants their new gTLD applications
represent some sort of "financial asset". If just one entity within a given
contention set is driven by commercial aspects (creating profits for
example) then they will NOT be willing to give up their "position" without a
fair "compensation". Which in our world is usually "cash". That might be
different if for example the European and the U.S. board of pharmacies had
each applied for a non-profit registry ".pharmacy" - with the aim to make
online commerce for pharmaceutical products safer. They might come up with
an agreement - and for example join forces to operate the string jointly. 


So in other words: In the overwhelming majority of cases "private contention
resolution" equals: A way to determine the fair value of and then processing
a compensation for those who have to withdraw their applications. And
obviously the different "private" auction models have proven to be reliable
to achieve that. But Jon is right: If not an "auction": it would be always a
way to COMPENSATE THE APPLICANTS WHO GIVE UP THEIR APPLICATION. And who pays
for that? Nobody has any motivation but the applicant who will remain the
only contention set member. Who else would come up with that "compensation"?

So in this respect: If we want to foster "private contention set resolution"
- then "denying auctions" is pointless.

I have always been very outspoken AGAINST auctions - because these invite
speculative registrations and "extortion" of other applicants. But this
isn't tied to the contention set resolution mechanism "auction" - but rather
to the nature of "compensation". And private contention set resolution is
usually synonym to just that: fair compensation for those who withdraw; paid
for by the prevailing applicant. 

So I am in agreement with Jon on this: We either scrap the "private
contention resolution" - or we leave it in the AGB. If we leave it in the
AGB - then any attempts to "regulate it" would create an ad absurdum. In my
eyes this is btw another argument why we should keep (or even raise) the
entry barrier into new gTLD applications. One entry barrier could be the
application cost: Keep it at the 2012 level or raise it even. At least for
the next round(s) - until "contention" doesn't anymore play a role.

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:06 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC

 

I have significant suggested changes to the private auction section in the
attached.  There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of private
auctions vs. other types of private resolutions in the 2012 round.  If the
WG wants to forbid all private resolutions and require an auction of last
resort, it could do so as a matter of policy.  

 

I don't see how, however, the WG could bad one form of private resolution
and not any others.  If just private auctions are banned, then the
applicants will come up with another way to pay each other.  In a simple
example take a contention set with only two applicants, the parties could
simply negotiate a sale; could flip a coin with the loser to pay a
pre-determined amount; could do a cut and choose option; could do a swap if
there were more than one TLDs in contention between the parties, etc.  There
are dozens of creative ways to resolve contention sets without a private
auction.    

 

In other words, if the WG wants all the money to go to ICANN or charity, it
needs to ban all private resolutions (not just private auctions).  Just
banning private auctions would be like just banning one flavor of ice cream.

 

The question is whether the WG has a consensus to ban private resolution and
force auctions of last resort or some other means to resolve contention.  

 

Thanks.  

 

Jon

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/bd7f484b/attachment.html>