ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[4gtld-contention]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

5/5 Comments on 4.23 Community Priority Evaluation Criteria, and Vertical Integration

  • To: 4gtld-contention@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: 5/5 Comments on 4.23 Community Priority Evaluation Criteria, and Vertical Integration
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:39:35 -0400

This comment is speculative in that it considers the interaction of implementation of the policy concerning Community-based applications in the DAG, and the possibility of policy concerning registrar function of registries arising from any exception to any policy concerning registry-registrar separation, currently under development by the GNSO Vertical Integration PDP Working Group.

Module 4: Repurposing the Community Priority Evaluation

The Vertical Integration Working Group (VI WG) is considering "Exceptions" (from Registry-Registrar separation requirements and/or Recommendation 19) for Community-based applications, and possibly other applications.

These considerations, contained in the VI PDP WG Initial Report [1], may be present in the Vertical Integration Policy Development Working Group's Final Report, and may be adopted as Consensus Policy by the GNSO, and presented to the ICANN Board for inclusion in the Applicant Guide Book.

In an effort to prevent abuse of an Exception for Community-based application, it is currently proposed that the Community Priority Evaluation, purposed for resolution of string set contention and the promotion of Community interests over speculative interests and accidental capture, be repurposed as an eligibility test for a form of registrar function occurring post-delegation.

There are at least two issues present in this good-faith effort by the VI WG to prevent a foreseeable abuse of a Community-based Exception (to cross-ownership limits or use of Registrars).

The first is the the optional versus mandatory nature of the Evaluation.

For the purposes of String Contention, it is optional, and applicants for strings may rationally choose not to indicate in their applications an election for Community Priority Evaluation.

For the purposes of any proposed "Vertical Integration Policy Exception for Community-based Registries", the same applicant may not rationally choose not to indicate in their applications an election for Community Priority Evaluation.

For Community-based applicants to reserve the right to exercise any post-delegation Exception, it must waive its right to waive Community Priority Evaluation, making this mandatory, rather than optional.

The second is the nature of the Evaluation it self.

The Evaluation is structured to produce a threshold, currently 14 of 16 possible points, itself a subject of significant discussion since Evaluation was initially proposed by Staff.

The intent of the parties, Staff and the Stakeholders and public comments, has been to answer a Contention Set outcome question between two or more applicants, prior to any further evaluation, possible contract, and eventual delegation.

The intent of the VI WG participants proposing a Vertical Integration Policy Exception for Community-based registries is to benefit, or remove restrictions considered harmful, or merely lacking necessity, an applicant that has obtained, or will obtain, a delegation.

The standards and threshold each purpose seek to use to these two quite different purposes may not be identical.

If a higher standard or threshold result from a Community-based Exception to a general policy on Registry-Registrar Separation, for delegated Registry Operators, this should not change the standard and threshold for Community-based applications in contention sets with speculative and accidental applications for the same or similar strings.

In CORE's view Community-based applicants are better served by cooperation with each other to creatively address general Consensus Policy than by exceptions to Consensus Policy, but CORE does not propose enforce cooperation, as that could not be called "cooperation".

CORE suggests that if the VI WG process results in a second use of a Community Priority Evaluation, that Community-based applicants that did not elect it at the time of application, be allowed to elect it at the time of application for Exception, so it is not mandatory in fact at application time.

CORE also suggests that if the VI WG process results in a second use of a Community Priority Evaluation, with higher standard or threshold, that the application of this standard and threshold be limited to the Exception application, not String Contention outcome resolution.


Eric Brunner-Williams
CORE Internet Council of Registrars


[1] https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy