[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Sat Aug 15 09:24:50 UTC 2020

I think we can do this easier:At submission the system generates an automated, random 16 digit number: which is being revealed to the applicant. The programming effort is zero: real random numbers are available on the Internet at no to little cost  (physically generated, real random numbers: not CPU generated).That number may become handy in all kinds of unintended incidents later. Among them: what if two bids are identical? Two zero Dollar bids are identical bids. The higher random 16 digit number wins - the second highest bid has to be paid  (which is either US $0 or whatever the identical bid amount was).We could use these numbers for prioritization as well. I don't see why the Californian State Government should be in a position to dictate ICANN whether or not it may use randomization for application queuing. It's not a lottery - it's a preempted randomization of application processing. How would that be subject to scrutiny by the State Government? Those who don't want to be prioritized can opt out either during the application submission or at any point thereafter by simply logging into the application system and unticking a box (can't be reverted, though).AlexanderSent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Donna at registry.godaddy 
Date: 8/15/20  02:18  (GMT+02:00) 
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials	for	WG	Member	review 

/* Font Definitions */
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
@list l1
@list l1:level2
@list l2
@list l3
@list l3:level2
@list l4
@list l4:level2
@list l5
@list l5:level2

That doesn’t work for me Rubens.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:59 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review


This email is from an external sender.



If applicant didn't submit a sealed bid in the allowed timeframe, we can assign 0 to its bid value. 

If the applicant is the only survivor of the contention set, it gets the TLD, even with a 0 bid. 

If more than one applicant didn't submit a bid, then all should be terminated, the TLD not allocated in that procedure and the TLD made available in a subsequent procedure. 





On 14 Aug 2020, at 19:16, 
Donna at registry.godaddy wrote:


Sorry for setting hares racing—my comments inline below—I think this is a drafting issue:


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 12:20 PM
To: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review


Notice: This email is from an external




I wanted to reply to a particular thread on the E-mail list that we did not get to yesterday during our call.


I think we have a couple of issues here all stemming from misunderstandings (which could be a text issue that we can fix).


I believe Donna read the original text in a way that it was not intended (but again that could be a drafting issue); andI believe Phil B. misread Donna’s comment to mean something I don’t think Donna intended; andRubens and Justine commented on Phil’s misreading of Donna’s comment.


So, let me try to add some clarity.


On Donna’s original point.  The language states: “At
 the end of the String Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared. Any
 applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort must submit a sealed bid for each relevant
 application (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”).

Donna took that to mean that to mean that Applicants could force other applicants to resolve their contention sets through
 private auctions (even if one applicant did not want to).

DA: No I didn’t take it to mean that at all. My point was, as noted in my issues document:


If it’s only applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort that submit a
 sealed bid at this point in the process, at what point would applicants who intend to resolve the contention set through private resolution, but end up in a contention set resolution via an ICANN Auction of Last Resort submit their sealed bid?


It was my understanding that if one applicant in the contention set opts for the ICANN Auction of Last Resort that negates
 the preference for private resolution of all the other applicants in the contention set.   


For example: you have six applicants that have applied for the same string. Two submit sealed bids because they want to compete
 for the string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort. Four don’t submit a sealed bid because they prefer private resolution. At what point will the ‘four’ be informed that the contention set will be resolved via an ICANN Auction of Last Resort (because If one
 party does not agree, the contention set will go to an ICANN Auction of Last Resort) and
 they will need to submit a sealed bid if they wish to continue?


That was not the intent.  An ICANN Auction of Last Resort is voluntary as well.  You cannot force an applicant to participate
 in an ICANN Auction.  The Intent of that sentence was that an applicant after finding out that there were other applicants for the string could decide that it wanted to withdraw it application.  Or if it were a community based applicant, it could decide to
 stay in until CPE, but if it didn’t qualify, not compete in an ICANN Auction (meaning essentially it would be withdrawing its application at that point). 

DA: If that’s the intent of the sentence then it needs to explicitly say that.


Donna’s proposed new language, however, states:  “All applicants in a contention set will
 be required to submit a sealed bid for each application in a contention set at this time. This sealed bid will only become relevant if the contention set is resolved through an ICANN Auction of Last Resort.
 (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”).

                                                    i.     This
 doesn’t work either because it does not allow for applicants to withdraw and/or does not let a community applicant have the option of going through CPE and then, only if not successful, withdrawing.

                                                  ii.     Sure
 an applicant can submit a sealed bid of $1.00 which essentially would be like withdrawing anyway, but there still should be a choice.

Therefore, my proposal would be to keep the language as is, but add a bullet point to Recommendation CC (Rationale 2);
 that makes it clear that a contention set may only be ultimately resolved through private resolution if ALL applicants in the contention set agree.  If one party does not agree, the contention set will go to an ICANN Auction of Last Resort.

DA: But that doesn’t address my concern about at what point applicants that did not submit a sealed bid will be required to
 do so?



Does this make sense?  I hope it clears some things up.  If not, I am sure we will discuss on Monday anyway.








Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
 <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 11:23 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review


I fully support Rubens' position on this.



On Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 10:46 Rubens Kuhl, <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:



Cannot live with rationale. 

Agree with (b) Donna’s comment . We cannot have a situation ( as happened last time) whereby o
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200815/216f73a0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list