Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

There has long been a request for a backing-out method through which an
applicant, very early in the process, could determine whether there was
either

   - Competition for their string (for an applicant that knows it's
   insufficiently funded to survive an auction)
   - A high likelihood of an objection from governments or other public
   interests

and if so, be given the option to back out gracefully while incurring a
minimum of expense. This was also requested as part of the GAC's desire for
a "quick look" period, in which applicants for potentially objectionable
strings could be informed of that early in the process and be given an
opportunity to withdraw with minimum financial damage done.

This is still a good idea, and has merit in this context as well. It
preserves both fairness and reliability. Indeed, it would reduce costs
significantly for applicants who might otherwise go deeper into a process
which would ultimately be futile (as well as for other applicants who would
otherwise have to bid against them).

It's not a perfect solution to the dilemma Eric points out, but it could at
least mitigate some of the worst damage.

- Evan


On 11 August 2011 14:05, Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Eric,
>
> This is a tough one to solve and I appreciate your efforts to do so.
>
> On one hand, we don't want candidates needing support to be limited to
> 'ugly' and 'unlikely' strings -- yet we also want the funds and
> non-financial services to go to a TLD that have a likelihood of being
> awarded. We also won't know what 'pretty' and 'likely' strings will actually
> be applied for until it's too late, nor how many candidates will apply for
> support.
>
> I, unfortunately, don't have any suggestions for solving this problem but I
> do feel we should afford support qualified candidates a chance at applying
> for their TLD. Maybe the thing to do is build in a process to "avoid wasting
> support resources on applications certain to fail" only if the number of
> support qualified candidates exceeds a certain threshold. We also need to be
> ensure candidates are educated about the risks associated with 'pretty' and
> 'likely' strings (i.e., auction) so they are selecting their string(s)
> carefully and with their eyes open. I would really hate for a support
> qualified candidate to walk away feeling they were set up to fail because
> they applied for .POPULAR-STRING. One way this could be accomplished is to
> require candidates to demonstrate understanding of the New gTLD Program as
> part of the qualification process.
>
> Krista Papac
> Chief Strategy Officer
> AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
> Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Web: www.ausregistry.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:58 AM
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Following up on yesterday's note, staff has maintained that applications
> in a contention set may find alternatives, meaning that cash and equity
> swaps may reduce a contention set from N to 1 prior to any auction. The
> assumption appears to be that each of the N applicants don't know at what
> point in a rising auction the N - 1 other applicants will exit the auction
> and from this lack of knowledge will prefer to bargin to set an agreed on
> "price" for each applicant's equity opportunity in the auction.
>
> However, if one of the N applicants is is a supported applicant, than the
> other N - 1 applicants do know the point at which the supported applicant
> will exist the auction, and so the equity opportunity of the supported
> applicant is zero, and the fair price to "buy out" the supported applicant
> is also zero.
>
> So, unlike non-supported applicants, supported applicants which do not
> have auction dispositive status (community type with 14/16 proven or made
> by on on behalf of some public administration for the common name of the
> associated territorial jurisdiction), who's application is determined to
> be in a contention set with at least one other non-supported application,
> can neither benefit in auction outcomes, nor can they benefit in auction
> avoidance outcomes.
>
> We could, in order to avoid wasting support resources on applications
> certain to fail:
>
>        o condition support on the applied for string being unlikely
>          to fall in a contention set, e.g., more than 10 Latin, Cyrillic
>          or Arabic script characters, more than 4 Han characters, and
>          not one of the first thousand google-ranked keywords in the
>          script. Support is limited to the ugly and unlikely.
> or
>        o order, or eliminate, support for applications which lack one
>          of the auction dispositive status characteristics, or which
>          meet the prior criteria of being ugly or unlikely. Support is
>          limited to the above plus 14/16 scoring (which we actually can
>          not know in advance) Community Based applications and those
>          made by or on behalf of public administrations for the associated
>          common name.
> or
>        o inform the Board that a mechanism is required to be added to
>          those identified in the DAG to allow supported applicants to
>          obtain one or more strings also sought by unsupported applicants.
>
> I still don't have a best answer, I'm thinking and writing, comments are
> sought.
>
> Eric
>
>