4/5: Evaluator panel must be able to avoid auction for contending community applications
[This is the fourth of a series of five comments on Community Priority Evaluation] The currently proposed logic in case of contending community-based applications is potentially harmful. In case both contending applicants are found to be community-based, an auction would make the determination. In the realm of ccTLDs, similar cases have existed. One such example is .eh (Western Sahara). Just as it would be inconceivable to have an auction decide who should operate .eh, it is equally inconceivable to have an auction decide as to who should run domains like .kashmir, .apache or .yoga. In these cases, non-delegation for as long as contention formally persists is a far better solution. The applications subject to unresolved contention should remain open for the subsequent gTLD round unless agreement is reached. At that point, each applicant should be allowed to lodge updated application at no charge, based on the conditions of the new gTLD round. These updated applications would not be evaluated unless a modest re-evaluation fee, in the order of USD 5000 per application. One party can be allowed to pay the re-evaluation fees for the other party as well and thus obtain re-evaluation. The result of re-evaluation may still be the status quo, i.e. no delegation for the time being. Werner Staub CORE Internet Council of Registrars |