[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 13 Jul 2020, at 17:27, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> I’m quite overwhelmed too Elaine, certainly a lot of words.
> 
> No surprise that I concur with much of the content in Paul’s email below.
> 
> I appreciate the time and thought Jim has put into his proposal and the spirit of compromise in which it has been provided. I recall that you stated on a call recently that you could think of ’10 ways to game’ a proposal that was under discussion. I don’t recall the specifics but I remember your statement. I think if a few of us put our collective heads together we could think of 10 ways to game Jim’s proposal as well.
> 
> I support Paul’s application terms and conditions as the preferred manner in which to address the issue of contention resolution, and as the basis for the policy recommendation. I also think Paul’s point about data collection for subsequent application rounds is also important moving forward. We’ve had many discussions about the mal-intent or frivolity from last round and, in my opinion, the evidence to substantiate this claim is at best anecdotal.
> 
> 1. The applicant has a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded.  The “examiners” would be able to issue additional questions if it appears that the business plan is rudimentary or if there is evidence that the applicant does not really have the needed intent.  Applicants would be able to supplement the record to assure “examiners.”
> 
> 2.  The application is not being submitted solely for the purpose of being able to participate in private auctions.
> 
> So, how would these terms be policed?
> 
> A.  If an applicant does not actually launch the registry if awarded or sells it in the aftermarket within 2 years of delegation, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption of non-intent for that applicant.
> 
> B. If an applicant only “sells” applications in private auctions and does not actually proceed with any to contracting, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the new gTLD program to speculate on registries.
> 


This method of policing has one issue we are facing with our drop auctions(~200 a month): it allows for one party to get one bite at gaming the system. Even a one-time event is profitable, so what happens is that new gamers come into the system while the old ones are blocked, making a constant flow of gaming. In our case preventing would create too much friction, but the new gTLD application system is already not an instant buy system, so something more robust would be welcome.




Rubens




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200713/7f682905/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200713/7f682905/signature.asc>