RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is no auction if there is no contention. My point is, as Jeff
clarified, that if there is any special consideration of VI for
community based TLDs then those TLDs should go through an evaluation to
confirm such designation regardless of whether there is contention or
not and regardless of whether they choose comparative evaluation or not.
Right now, the applicant guidebook does not account for that.

Tim  
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:35 am
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>

Jeff,

I intended the point of distinguishing between one model and another,
between "standard" and "community", for the purposes of doing policy
development, as meaning developing sensible, and distinguishable end
points of the policy development process.

Just as we don't know yet what a sensible community developed policy
is for new, standard applicants, we also don't know yet what a
sensible community developed policy is for new, community-based
applicants.

I agree with your earlier point "the reality is that 99 of the gTLD
Registrations (if not more) are governed under the same model as .com
and frankly I do not see the registries for these TLDs asking for any
changes to the structural separation rules".

I agree in part with your next observation, that the "only entities
asking for change are the potential new TLD applicants", with the
correction that these are potential new _standard_ applicants, not
community-based applicants.

The "niche registry" problem is adequately solved by the existing 15%
(or 11.2% cap), requiring that 7, or 9 such registries cooperatively
create a initial registrar.

However, the community policy development could come to some other
outcome, just as the standard policy development could come to
outcomes other than the present set of contracts.

We could get to a single answer, but we have two distinct models, and
we should not assume that we will necessarily get fewer policy answers
than basic models.

Side to Tim: The gaming motivation is present as an exception from
extinction through loss in auction. You are positing applicants who
don't cheat to stay alive during evaluation, but cheat afterwards. Am
I misunderstanding your point?

Eric