[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.

Tue Oct 23 18:41:03 UTC 2018

I have no objections to the what Jim has proposed as amended by Sarah.
Thank you both for the same.

Justine Chew
-----

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 15:45 Aikman-Scalese, Anne, <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> I support these changes.  No objection.
> Anne
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>
> ------ Original message------
> *From: *Jim Prendergast
> *Date: *Sun, Oct 21, 2018 9:42 AM
> *To: *Langstone, Sarah;jeff.neuman at comlaude.com;gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental
> interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed
> comment period.
>
> Sorry. I was going off what Jeff said yesterday as the rationale for not
> including them in the report.
>
>
>
> Im ok with this change.
>
>
>
> *From:* Langstone, Sarah <slangstone at Verisign.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 6:12 PM
> *To:* jeff.neuman at comlaude.com; Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related
> to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
>
>
>
> Thanks Jim
>
>
>
> Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for
> feedback in the following question:
>
>
>
> 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize
> “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such
> rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured
> or implemented?
>
>
>
> A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening  of the
> first sentence with:
>
>
>
> “The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback
> on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of
> private auctions…..”
>
>
>
> While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions
> (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on
> the Initial Report,
>
>
>
> Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships
>
> Verisign Inc
>
>
>
> This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore,
> may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any
> other person without the prior written consent of the sender.  If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email
> (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using,
> disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM
> *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for
> Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the
> recently closed comment period.
>
>
>
> Thanks Jim.  I think this looks good.  Any objections from member of the
> Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that
> took place yesterday.
>
>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
>
>
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
>
> Suite 600, McLean
>
> VA 22102, USA
>
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
> www.comlaude.com
>
>
> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the
> sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This
> message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential
> information. If you have received this message in error, please send it
> back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or
> disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com
> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Jim Prendergast
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim
> report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment
> period.
>
>
>
> Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also
> providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns
> as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about
> including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report.
>
>
>
> Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with:  *Private
> resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular
> area of concern by a number of community members…… *
>
>
>
> *With the Following ……*
>
>
>
> While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions
> (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on
> the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of
> community members, as well as the ICANN Board.  The group has not had a
> chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate
> excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this
> topic:
>
>
>
> *ICANN Board – full comment at
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000046.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000046.html>
> *
>
> Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the
> Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to
> engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private
> auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only
> increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on
> other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their
> intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular,
> we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other
> applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the
> application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values.
>
>
>
> *IPC – full comment at
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000063.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000063.html>
> *
>
> The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or
> gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further
> resolution mechanisms outside of  auctions.
>
>
>
> *ALAC – full comment at
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000065.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000065.html>
> *
>
> At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may
> have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones.
> Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be
> completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore
> other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve
> as more equitable (e.g., like a draw).
>
>
>
> *RySG – Full Comment at
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000052.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000052.html>
> *
>
> The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and
> analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the
> important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These
> include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives
> although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without
> sufficient explanation as to the basis.
>
> The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some
> members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such
> auctions as part of its work going forward.
>
> Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of
> successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have
> worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes
> put in place.
>
> Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include;
> • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process
> was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in
> subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial
> benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of
> an applicant’s application strategy
> • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because
> the proceeds are shared by auction participants
> • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority
> interests are underrepresented
> • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or
> determined.
>
> We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to
> split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise
> have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by
> ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about
> private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph,
> addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive
> advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised
> by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be
> considered as any final report that does not address the many issues
> surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient.
>
> The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not
> believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the
> issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our
> knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations
> could take place.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Prendergast
>
> The Galway Strategy Group
>
> jim at galwaysg.com
>
> +1 202-285-3699
>
> @jimpren
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181023/985865c7/attachment-0001.html>