At-Large Workspace: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
Public Comment Close | Statement | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for | Call for | Vote Open | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Hide the information below, please click here
FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
Comments
Topic 2.1 Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort
Preliminary Recommendations, Options & Questions
PR 2.1.c.1: ICANN auctions should remain.
+Q 2.1.e.1: Are auctions of last resort inherently unfair and should be modified, restricted or modified?
+Q 2.1.e.2: Should other aspects (eg non-financial) be introduced to make auctions of last resort more “fair”?
+Q 2.1.e.3: What other measures to consider to enhance “fairness”?
+Q 2.1.e.4: Should auctions be eliminated, replaced with a comparative evaluation process? Such as RFP process, random draw.
+Q 2.1.e.5: Do auctions of last resort allow deep-pocketed applicant to secure all strings within a market? Is this a concern? Should limit be placed on number of auctions per applicant? Is this anti-competitive? Difficult to enforce?
PR 2.1.c.2: Additional options for voluntary contention resolution, being:
- Option 2.1.d.1: Different Type of Auctions: Vickrey auction
Could eliminate contentions sets at beginning
Concern over value place on a string
Still favor deep pockets – impact on ASP and community applicants
Concern over ICANN securing highly proprietary info
- Option 2.1.d.2: Alternatives to Auction:
2.1.d.2.1 Request for Proposals
Use of third-party evaluators?
Criteria around diversity eg priority to first applicants, community applicants, minority-supported applicants
2.1.d.2.2 Random Draw
Simple, effective, fair, eliminate comparative evaluations?
Lottery, require proper licensing
2.1.d.2.3 System of Graduated Fees
Established for each additional application submitted by an applicant
Possibly limits number of applications going to auction
Would this favor larger entities?
Topic 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (inc. Private Auctions)
Options & Questions
Q 2.2.e.1 Should private resolutions continue? If yes, should funds be distributed amongst remaining applicants within auction? Charity? ICANN? What’s most appropriate?
Option 2.2.d.1: Should AGB and T&Cs be amended to disallow private resolution where a party is paid to withdraw? Should RA provide for ‘forfeiture’ of TLD if RO shown to have partaken in such a private resolution?
•+Q 2.2.e.3: Is this the best prevention method? Other effective mechanisms (eg increasing application fees)?
•+Q 2.2.e.6: Would increasing application fees deter “gamers” and what amount or criteria to establish amount?
Option 2.2.d.2: Does simple “no private auction” rule work? Should all forms of private resolution be banned altogether? -> modification to Implementation Guidance F
•+Q 2.2.e.2: Are issues with private resolutions equally problematic across different TLD types? Should TLD type be a factor in allowing private resolution?
Option 2.2.d.3: Allow some private resolutions, disallow others?
Change request – applicable criteria: Related string, (b) Does not cause another contention set [see also SIR s.2.4]
ICANN approval subject to: (a) Name collision risk assessment, (b) Public comment, (c) Established Objection procedures
Consequences: (a) Application not allowed to proceed or (b) Forfeiture of registry
Q 2.2.e.4: If private resolution overall is potentially problematic, is there practical way to prevent it?
Q 2.2.e.5: Else, are there practical ways to allow some but disallow others (as above)? What’s acceptable form of private resolution and what’s not? Who determines whether party engaged in non-acceptable form(s) and how?
19 Dec Update (for CPWG 19 Dec call)
An (earlier) statement dated 12.12.2018 had been settled for consideration/vote of the ALAC. Following the extension of deadline for submitting a comment to this Supplemental Report (now set to 21 Dec), the ALAC decided to reopen the 12.12.2018 statement for comments.
Subsequently, during the CPWG call of 12.12.2018, some members urged for a reconsideration of the ALAC position on Topic 2.1 Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort. Discussions ensued in response to a call made by CPWG Co-Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond. The following (abbreviated) slide deck (v3) attempts to (1) capture the essence of those discussions and (2) reconfirm the responses to the other Topics as consensus positions. Please note that the slide deck may be subject to further change.
I would also like to draw attention to the ICANN Board's comments to the Supplemental Report, as circulated by the SubPro WG Co-Chair.
4 Dec Update
Little feedback was received post my 7.11.2018 call for inputs made to CPWG email list. Have proceeded to draft proposed positions / responses to the SubPro WG's preliminary recommendations, options and questions for the 5 additional topics.
Here is the updated slide deck (v2) containing said proposed positions / responses. Please see slides 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23 to focus on these and note that the preliminary recommendations, options and questions are my abbreviated interpretations. For the full text of the report etc please see Section III above.
As before, please provide inputs to the proposed positions / responses for the 5 topics under the corresponding posts below, or to the CPWG email list. Thanks.
7 Nov Post
As presented at the 7.11.2018 CPWG call, the plan is to have members review the issues in order to provide input to the development of responses called for by the SubPro WG to preliminary recommendations, options and questions. The public comment period closes on 12.12.2018 so we hope to work expeditiously to get a statement for submission by then.
This is the backgrounder slide deck (v1) to start with:-
Please provide inputs to the 5 topics under the corresponding posts below.