[Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Wed Oct 23 23:09:00 UTC 2019


Hi,

 

Regarding “objections” and their timing let’s look at the facts (we are discussing contention sets – so contention is assumed):

 

*         We have at least 2 applications in contention: likely for the identical string (though string similarity could play a factor here, too: but super seldom).

*         Likely both applications are similar: Some VC money funded applicant wants to run the TLD by “making domains available” through the registrar channel (outside of Spec 13 applications the pre

*         Now we are discussing “objections”; in all likelihood an objector would object to the notion, that some VC money funded applicant “makes domain available” through the registrar channel! Likely IRRESPECTABLY of the identity of the applicant. (exceptions might exist of course). Example would be: Two applicants want to run “.twitter” – for bird fetishists! TWITTER doesn’t like it and objects. Or two U.S. based applicants want to run “.mecca” – kind of as “.guru” surrogate: ski.mecca, diving.mecca! The KSA would object.
No it doesn’t matter to the KSA or TWITTER who wants to run .twitter or .mecca: They will simply don’t like it. Do we force them to object one applicant, then the next one gets evaluated and they need to object again? They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical.

*         So I suggest: Once an objection is being filed – that triggers the initial evaluation for ALL contention set members. And all those who pass will be subject to the objection (if the objecting party wants so). The percentage of objected strings was fairly low – so you must have a bad luck (or bad taste rather) if that happens to you. 

 

Any contention set resolution can only start once we are past the stadium where objections could be filed. 



Contention set resolution:

1.       In case of the ICANN Vickery “Instant Contention Set Resolution”: Any ONE applicant can trigger that; and it would result in a speedy, instant resolution. The winner would THEN be evaluated – if that fails the 2nd winner would be awarded. No evaluation failed in the 2012 round – so it’s very unlikely. After successful passing the initial evaluation the winner has to pay (just like in the former “ICANN auction of last resort); and is then on their own (has a 18 month time to contract, then a 24 month to enter the root). I don’t see that they should be able to drag it out for 3.5 years BEFORE they pay up. That would be a SIGNIFICANT change to the 2012 round. So the winner needs to pay directly after winning – not after delegation of the string.

2.       In case ALL applicants signal ICANN that they want to explore a private contention set resolution then all applicants need to be evaluated BEFORE that can happen. The result of private contention set resolution in the 2012 round was in 100% of all cases the withdrawal of applications of the losers. The “winner” had to give them “something” (usually cash; or another application; or shares, or whatnot). This only works if the winner owns an “asset”: an application that survived the initial evaluation. 

 

So in case of an objection or the request of the entire contention set to be granted time to explore private contention set resolution: ALL applications of that set need to be evaluated.



 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:58 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

 

There cannot be a 'winner' if there is still unlimited potential for anyone to object on any basis.  That probably would be unreasonable to take on such risk.  But if objections at least had to be lodged in some form, even if not fully briefed with evidence, then at least everyone could make some risk assessment in resolving the contention set.  I think that would encourage lots of silly lodged objections though.  And I am still not convinced this is a big enough problem warranting such a substantial change to the previously agreed, dseigned and implemented, and highly complicated and integrated processes to resolve contention and objections in a timely and reasonably foreseeable manner.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.law 

 

 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> > wrote:

Whatever else you might want to say, it seems to me ridiculously wasteful to trigger Objection filing deadlines on all applicants in a string contention set when only one (or a combination if a JV is formed via private resolution) is going to win out.  Objection filing deadlines should not be triggered until the winner is clear.  Then other applicants can stay in line if they want to wait out the Objection process – but apparently only if that privilege is agreed via private resolution?

 

From: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com <mailto:dorraink at amazon.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:33 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com> >
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

 

[EXTERNAL]

  _____  

Sorry, my text was in red after my intro “Donna clarified” sentence.  I do NOT believe “speculation in TLDs” is either defined or a problem to be prevented.  I should have noted.  My edits in RED.

(Also, I think I was capturing Donna’s points, but invite correction if I got it wrong.)

Kristine

 

From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:27 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com <mailto:dorraink at amazon.com> >
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal

 

Thanks Kristine.  You refer to the purported problem as " to Avoid Speculation in TLDs."


 

I don't know how we mean to define "speculation" and whether that is a bad thing.  Until you define the thing it is you are trying to prevent, and why it is such a bad thing that we should try to prevent it, it is impossible to try to solve against it.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.law 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> > wrote:

Hi Anne, 

 

Donna clarified, and I seconded (but only to the extent that we’re entertaining ideas ahead of Kurt, and Mike ,and others’, entirely reasonable request for more clarity around the problem we’re solving for because I agree we’re all guessing), the idea that the bidding plays no role until the applicants are ready for an auction of last resort. 

 

So, to my mind, it looks like this instead - 

 

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? Only if all four parties agree, but it’s looking good for applicant 1, so they’ll probably stick it out and take their chances with evaluation.

 

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.)  continue evaluating 3 non-Community applications.

 

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. continue evaluating 3 non-Community applications

 

 

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 (is Sam’s Club the applicant?).  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. And that all other applications pass initial evaluation.

 

  Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner.any or all of the other three applications until the appeals are concluded.

 

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. 

 

All surviving applicants have the opportunity to privately resolve their contention set.  If any applicant does not wish to privately resolve the contention set , then we move to the auction of last resort (or “instant resolution”).  ICANN opens the bids and awards the TLD to the highest bidding remaining application, who pays the amount bid by the remaining applicant  with the second highest bid.

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:22 PM
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. 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

 

  _____  


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/20191024/19689bc1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list