[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Compromise proposal on Auctions

Phil Buckingham phil at dotadvice.co.uk
Thu Jul 2 00:28:22 UTC 2020


Jim, 
Many thanks for this . I have been working on a very similar proposal.
This is excellent and eliminates many of the problems and issues that applicants encountered at great cost and delay in Round 1. 
The issue I have is there are so many moving parts and so many different scenarios that could happen still and certainly did happen last time. I guess we simply can’t cover all bases. 
This is a great start and clearly lays out the ground rules and a clear timeline for implementation guidance . Perhaps further down the line it can be tweaked for  special / exceptional scenarios. 
I have a couple of points . 
Firstly , I think 90 days is too short a period ( from once an applicant find itself in a contention set on Reveal Day ) to then have to put a bid valuation together, to completely revise it business model & strategy to then go out to the market  to raise substantial $Ms to win the auction. 
Could they not let be know earlier by ICANN ? 

2 I’m assuming that the financial and technical evaluation will / must come AFTER the contention set is resolved( and paid out/ back to the losers ). Surely the winner will need to resubmit their business models / financials to reflect the cost of winning the auction / its funding / its cashflows to enable it to pass the (old) Q46. 
As we now know many applicants totally overpaid to win their auction in Round 1 , revenues and registrations are substantially below original evaluation budgets , such that many current TLDs are not viable . I think Q46 needs to much tougher this time around to get a financial evaluation pass. 

3. How do we incorporate a scenario of a losing CPE applicant having to go  to a contention set - which it will very likely lose through lack of extra auction funds. I guess the CPE applications will need to go first as priority for initial evaluation ,so if it fails IE & EE , only then can the private resolution / auction start. 
Does this x ref to CPE recommendations ? 

4 . What of the same scenario but with an Applicant Support application that finds itself in a contention set .

5. I really don’t like & many applicants didn’t want at all  to go to the ICANN public auction last time  because it is just that - public . I totally agree with your idea that this Round that all proceeds from an ICANN public auction are redistributed back to the losing applicants as soon as possible. 
ICANN can’t be seen to be making any money from these auctions . 

Regards,
Phil 

Phil Buckingham 


I really think it is time now for ICANN.org to set up a Budget Operations Launch Delegation Team . 
Let’s call it BOLD 2  in time to start straight after ICANN 69 ( Hamburg) . The team need to be full time employees of ICANN.org. 














Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Jul 2020, at 22:11, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Jul 2020, at 17:26, Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal.
>>  
>> It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants.
>>  
>> Objective: 
>> Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program.
>>  
>> Proposed process:
>> String Similarity evaluation completed
> 
> Jim,
> 
> You might want to add security and stability evaluation (which is string-based, not Q30 Security question in Technical Evaluation) and name collision risk.
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200702/9b92cf0c/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list