[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: String Contention Proposal

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Hi Alexander – I included the CPE to show what would happen with applicants if CPE fails.  If so, all 4 applicants could potentially go into private resolution OR the highest bidder would proceed to the Objection phase.  Again, no objection deadline should be triggered unless and until there is a winner.  The 2012 process was highly wasteful where string contention existed.

I have questions similar to yours as to the funds going to ICANN, but the “horse is out of the barn” on that one.
Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:48 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: String Contention Proposal

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Hi Anne,

First: Congrats on the fantasy you developed here (in a positive meaning).

Simple question: Like in Jeff’s example it seems to not leave any room for private contention resolution. If there was a community priority applicant – and they triggered the CPE (which they WILL – why else agreeing to all the restrictions in the first place) – and they win CPE and no appeal or objection stops them: the case is obviously simple. So that case doesn’t need any discussion.

We need to discuss contention sets where community priority doesn’t play (anymore) a role  (and that’s the overwhelming majority of contention sets).

Two main scenarios:

1.       Private contention set resolution:
The contentions set would sit together and resolve contention (in whatever way). Once they are done resolving contention all but the winner would have to withdraw their application (and usually SPEEDY – within days). But the winner would want to be sure that they pass the initial evaluation. So in 100 out of 100 cases the entire contention set WILL ask to be evaluated BEFORE they enter private contention set resolution. This WILL lead to delays – and that’s good: It creates an incentive for one of the contention set members to reject private contention (which in 2012 was in almost all cases a cash payment to the others)

2.       ICANN Sealed Second-Price Auction (Vickery):
Once scenario 1 doesn’t work out (the contention set doesn’t ask for evaluation) one of the contention set members can immediately after the reveal day (or once a CPE is lost in the rare cases a community priority applicant is involved) ask for the ICANN “Instant Resolution” (it’s not anymore “last resort”) – and the winner can start trading after being evaluated! This will b SO MUCH faster than waiting for all contentions set members to be evaluated – then entering in a private auction (which takes quite a bit of time and preparation). As an additional “perk” ICANN could offer the winner of any Vickery auction an instant evaluation – as further incentive!

Private contention set resolution translates in almost 100% of all cases to a monetary compensation for the “loss of the asset” (application withdrawal). The easier and quicker an ICANN “Instant  Resolution” is – the less entities would entertain speculative applications.  When we created the policies for the first round there was the dreamy vision of applicants sitting around a fire and smoking a peace pipe – then hugging each other for prolonged periods of time before walking hand in hand into the sundown – being a happy new patchwork gTLD family. Never happened. I am not sure why we are STILL calling it “ICANN LAST RESORT” mechanism. I would rather rephrase it to “ICANN Instant Resolution”.

Also: I just don’t understand why the money always has to go to ICANN. If a community owned, funded and governed effort tries to secure for example a city: they came up with the auction funds (and not some “VC”). They might not be able to go for community priority – take Oakland as example (too many Oaklands – not clearly delineated). If all the money comes from city constituents – why should ICANN pocket it? Why can’t it go to a couple of non-profits in the community that sourced the cash in the first place? This way if a couple of wealthy people in the community fund the effort – and the auction ends at 5 Million – they know at least it’s staying WITHIN THEIR community – and doesn’t go to “some” cause that is unrelated. It’s inherently unfair for ICANN to extract cash out of a community – just so they can run “their” string (again: do not conflate “community” and “community priority applicant” – these are two different things altogether: only very few communities qualify as community priority applicant!). Thoughts?

Thanks,

Alexander



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:22 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: String Contention Proposal

________________________________
Regarding Tuesday’s call (Monday night in the US), I am offering the following hypothetical based on Donna’s suggestion to collect sealed bids prior to a reveal of the contention set.

String Contention Proposal to Avoid Speculation in TLDs

4 applications for .sam  string – contention set and parties not revealed on application date.

Per Donna's suggestion, parties are all 4 notified of string contention and asked to submit sealed bids.  Sealed bids received.  (Some may drop out.)

Application 1 is a Community Application for .sam for the "Society for Aviation Maintenance".  All worldwide aviation maintenance unions back this application.  Public comment is sought.  At this point, the other applicants know there is a CPE application but their bids are already in.  Should private resolution be permitted at this point or not?

A. CPE Pass leads to Appeal.  If sustained, Application 1 wins.  If overturned, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application.  (It's still possible for this application to be the highest bidder even if it fails CPE.)

B. CPE Fail leads to Appeal.  If overturned, Application 1 wins. If CPE Fail is sustained, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application.


Application 2 for .sam Purpose: Dedicated to domains for those interested in the Samurai arts.

Application 3 for .sam Purpose: Free speech on the pros and cons of Uncle Sam (USG)

Application 4 for .sam Purpose: Retail sales.  Assume CPE for Application 1 fails and that Application 4 submitted the highest sealed bid.  Solicit public comment on Application 4 and the Objection deadline is triggered.

  Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner.

A.LRO Success leads to Appeal.  If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline.  If LRO success is overturned, Application 4 wins .sam.

B. LRO Failure leads to Appeal.  If failed LRO upheld on appeal, Application 4 wins .sam.  If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline.

________________________________

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.

________________________________

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191023/4870570d/attachment-0001.html>