Comments on String Contention Procedures
4.1.2 Impact of DIspute Resolution Proceedings on Contention Sets at 4-5. The use of a string confusion objection to create a contention set seems to be a means for a 3rd-party to perform the contention set detection. It seems to me that if such an objection is made, and the objection prevails, that the cost should not be born by either party, but by the party tasked with correctly forming contention sets. This appears to be an edge case where an error by the contention set evaluator could be caught by an affected other applicant (or other non-applicant party), and corrected, at the affected other applicant's (or other non-applicant party) cost. 4.1.3 Self-Resolution of String Contention at 4-5. The restriction that an applicant may not change the string for which it is applying upon detection of contention is excessive. We should avoid "string tasting", where an applicant starts at .hot and eventually finds some .warm or .cool where no contention occurs, and "shotgunning", where an applicant starts with a set of strings and intends to determine which is the better choice through the evaluation process, but we should not force contention where the applicants did not intend contention. A single change of string, or a fee for string change, or a bump to the next round, voluntary or forced, seem better outcomes than forcing elimination and the total or partial loss of all fees. 4.2.1 Eligibility for Comparative Evaluation at 4-7. We remind staff that the GNSO Council in San Juan determined that if an application for a string is community-based, that is dispositive in the determination of the award of the string over all other applications in the same contention set which are not community-based. 4.2.2 Comparative Evaluation Procedure at 4-8. The final sentence of the second bullet should be changed, the better choice is present in 2.1.1.4.3 Review Procedures for Geographical Names at 2-15 to 2-16 "If there is more than one application for a string representing a certain geographical name ... and the applications are considered complete ..., the applications will be suspended pending resolution by the applicants." See Comments on Evaluation Procedures, submitted separately. Going to auction is not what ICANN should be inflicting on divided communities. Its not what we do with iso3166 delegation problems. Its not what we should be doing with real people. 4.2.2 Comparative Evaluation Procedure, also at 4-8. The final para has open and community based applications going to auction if none of the community based applications meet the minimum score on the comparative evaluation criteria. This is contrary to the policy chosen by the GNSO Council in San Juan, and not modified by the Board subsequently. 4.2.3 Comparative Evaluation Criteria at 4-8 to 4-12. It would be helpful if staff were to apply the v2 criteria to .cat and determine if .cat would meet the minimum score on the comparative evaluation criteria. We've provided considerable comment on the subject previously, and the changes staff has made are appreciated. However, before we can say "done" we should know if what we all think was the model for a community based application actually meets the proposed test for community based applications, or if Catalans would have to bid against feline fanatics and yellow tractor lovers. 4.3 Aution: Mechanism of Last Resort at 4-13 to 4-21. While our interest in the subject is academic, it seems that staff could have used any number of low-tech solutions to the problem of auctioning off items which may involve bids in the six, seven, and eight figures. Besides, watching an on-line bidding sequence isn't nearly as interesting as watching people bid. I work for CORE, CORE will submit applications, so this interest in the outcome should be included in my comment. Eric Brunner-Williams |