[ALAC] ALAC MEMBERS: Consensus Call on ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on New gTLD Contention Resolution closing 21 June at 23:59 UTC

Wed Jun 19 02:42:03 UTC 2024

Dear ALAC colleagues,

Please find one additional correction needed. It's to paragraph 4, which
should read,

The ALAC advises the ICANN Board to ban all forms of post-application private
resolution of contention sets, including joint-ventures regardless of
claims as good-faith joint ventures, with possible one exception - where
there are community-based applications in direct contention with one
another and two or more of them prevail in a Community Priority Evaluation
(CPE), then ICANN may postpone the auction for a limited period of time to
allow such parties to reach a settlement before proceeding to auction
involving only them (as currently provided for in s. 4.2.2 or the 2012
Application Guidebook).

Kind regards,
Justine

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 06:00, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There are some errors in the second last paragraph. It should read,
>
> In other words, the ALAC supports the overall intention of the Subsequent
> Procedures PDP Recommendation 35.4 which the GNSO Council chose not to
> submit to the ICANN Board for adoption, EXCEPT FOR (a) the provision
> allowing participation in various forms of private resolution; (b) the
> allowance for applicants whose applications are caught or are added to any
> contention sets that are expanded as a result of other application
> procedures to submit a fresh bid; and (c) the provision that ICANN Auctions
> must only take place after all the other evaluation procedures, and
> objections are completed.
>
> Kind regards,
> Justine
> ---------
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, 23:21 ICANN At-Large Staff via ALAC, <
> alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> On behalf of Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Chair, this is a three-day Consensus
>> call for the 15 members of the ALAC on the ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board
>> on New gTLD Contention Resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Consensus call will close on Friday, 21 June at 23:59 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any significant comments or concerns on
>> the ALAC Advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> *At-Large Advisory Committee Advice to the ICANN Board on New gTLD
>> Contention Resolution *
>>
>>
>>
>> In her 3 June 2024 Blog <
>> https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/board-discusses-auctions-of-last-resort-private-resolution-of-contention-sets-03-06-2024-en>,
>> the ICANN Board Chair reiterated that *“the Board is not inclined to
>> sanction a repeat of the 2012 process when private resolutions were
>> encouraged in the Applicant Guidebook.”*
>>
>>
>>
>> The ALAC strongly supports this statement by the ICANN Board Chair.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ALAC agrees with the National Economic Research Associates (NERA)
>> which said in its report of 17 May 2024 <
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/addressing-monetary-means-private-resolution-final-report-17may24-en.pdf>
>> that attempting to eliminate private auctions or comparable monetary
>> resolutions while allowing legitimate post-application “joint ventures”
>> would be difficult or impossible, and its conclusion that a ban on private
>> resolutions would have to include all forms, including joint ventures.
>> While also noting the lack of such post-application joint ventures being
>> formed to as a means to resolve contention sets in the 2012 round, the ALAC
>> now reiterates and expands upon its previous advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ALAC advises the ICANN Board to ban all forms of post-application
>> private resolution of contention sets, including joint-ventures regardless
>> of claims as good-faith joint ventures.
>>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the ALAC advises the ICANN Board to adjust the ICANN Auction
>> of Last Resort to an auction process a methodology comparable to a Vickrey
>> Auction (sealed-bid second-price auction - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction
>> [en.wikipedia.org]
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction__;!!PtGJab4!5_mw9p8LH53CKdy0Qa_hrpCzu8E1QHSvqcPQXg2ciD8heLDDYij8iwoB84wIWYX3tF4wmVe1bIwygRGX6pzj3IQ97DuyOttfCiK2HA$>)
>> requiring each gTLD string application to be accompanied by an auction bid
>> at the time the application is submitted, and prior to any indication of
>> possible contention sets being formed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Firstly, requiring an applicant to submit an accompanying auction bid
>> with its application - and if more than one application, a bid with each of
>> its applications - helps the applicant demonstrate the *bona fide *intention
>> of operating a TLD that it affirmatively attests to.
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly, Vickrey auctions mitigate, if not eliminate, any ability to
>> abuse or game the application process since bids are submitted prior to
>> knowing if there are any competitors and who they may be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thirdly, ICANN may be able to capitalize on opportunities to reduce
>> application evaluation costs, for both ICANN org and applicants, in cases
>> where there are multiple contenders for the same string, by strategically
>> positioning the ICANN Auction as a process of elimination earlier in the
>> evaluation cycle, rather than as a contention set resolution mechanism of
>> last resort, thereby foregoing the need for evaluation processes which can
>> reasonably be avoided. However, this consideration must not displace the
>> option for Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) by Community-based TLD
>> applicants that opt for the CPE in an attempt to prevail out of a
>> contention set.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, the ALAC supports the overall intention of the Subsequent
>> Procedures Recommendation 35.4 which the GNSO Council chose not to submit
>> to the ICANN Board for adoption, *EXCEPT FOR* (a) the provision allowing
>> participation in various forms of private resolution; (b) the allowance for
>> applicants whose applications that are caught or are added to any
>> contention sets that are expanded as a result of other application
>> procedures to as a result of other application procedures; and (c) the
>> provision that ICANN Auctions would only take place after all the other
>> evaluation procedures, and objections are completed.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ALAC would be pleased to enter into further dialogue with the Board
>> on any of these issues.
>>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> At-Large Staff
>>
>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
>>
>> Website: atlarge.icann.org
>>
>> Facebook: facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>
>> atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>
>>
>> Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge
>> <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: signature_1222559652]
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20240619/8c4c5827/attachment-0001.html>