GTLD Auctions: Difference between revisions
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
==Auctions as Illegal?== | ==Auctions as Illegal?== | ||
In March 2013, the [[ICANN]] community and its new gTLD applicants and their representatives responded to news that prominent portfolio new TLD applicant, [[Uniregistry]], had learned from the U.S. Department of Justice that Private gTLD Auctions would be potentially illegal and could be prosecuted as "bid-rigging." The practice in question is illegal in various countries and largely related to government contracts, when bidders for multiple contracts may collude to each submit one high-ball bid for different jobs, thereby guaranteeing that they will each receive the project where they were able to submit the lower bid. The practice inflates the price paid for work obtained via bidding processes. The ICANN process is notably different in the fact that ICANN has expressly noted that it prefers not to receive funds via auction and prefers applicants to reach agreements among themselves. However, it is not up to ICANN whether or not charges are pressed, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently has | In March 2013, the [[ICANN]] community and its new gTLD applicants and their representatives responded to news that prominent portfolio new TLD applicant, [[Uniregistry]], had learned from the U.S. Department of Justice that Private gTLD Auctions would be potentially illegal and could be prosecuted as "bid-rigging." The practice in question is illegal in various countries and largely related to government contracts, when bidders for multiple contracts may collude to each submit one high-ball bid for different jobs, thereby guaranteeing that they will each receive the project where they were able to submit the lower bid. The practice inflates the price paid for work obtained via bidding processes. The ICANN process is notably different in the fact that ICANN has expressly noted that it prefers not to receive funds via auction and prefers applicants to reach agreements among themselves. However, it is not up to ICANN whether or not charges are pressed, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently has declined to issue a business review of various private gTLD contention resolution mechanisms. [[ Uniregistry]] has concluded that because the DOJ declined to issue a business review, that, "no private party, including ICANN, has the authority to grant to any other party exemptions to, or immunity from, the antitrust laws. The decision means that the Department of Justice reserves its right to prosecute and/or seek civil penalties from persons or companies that participate in anti-competitive schemes in violation of applicable antitrust laws." | ||
The announcement from Uniregistry was decried by prominent supporters of private auctions, such as [[Michael Berkens]] of the auction services provider [[Right of the Dot]], while other community members, such as [[Antony Van Couvering]] of [[Minds + Machines]], corroborated Uniregistry's statements and | The announcement from Uniregistry was decried by prominent supporters of private auctions, such as [[Michael Berkens]] of the auction services provider [[Right of the Dot]], while other community members, such as [[Antony Van Couvering]] of [[Minds + Machines]], corroborated Uniregistry's statements (until later reversing course and supporting private auctions).<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12308-breaking-doj-says-new-gtld-private-auctions-might-be-illegal Breaking DOJ says New gTLD Private Auctions Might be Illegal, DomainIncite.com] Published 19 March 2013, Retrieved 29 March 2013</ref> It has been noted that Uniregistry has never supported private auctions, and it has arguably come to the conclusion that it stands a better chance of winning contention sets against other large portfolio applicants, such as [[Donuts]] and [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]], if those applicants are not allowed to receive funds through lost auctions. On June 3rd, 2013 Van Couvering wrote an article in CircleID in which he changed positions to support private auctions. He argues that private auctions will provide more money for companies to create "healthy, vigorous registries."<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130603_icann_auctions_or_private_auctions/ icann or private auctions] Published 3 Jun 13 Retrieved 4 Jun 13</ref> | ||
Commentators have noted that the DOJ could just as easily prosecute the ICANN Auctions of Last resort, though ICANN would have significant funds obtained via these auctions and the application process to defend itself via legal proceedings.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12316-did-uniregistry-over-sell-the-auction-antitrust-risk Did Uniregistry Over Sell the Auction Antirust Risk, DomainIncite.com]Published 20 March 2013, Retrieved 29 march 2013</ref> | Commentators have noted that the DOJ could just as easily prosecute the ICANN Auctions of Last resort, though ICANN would have significant funds obtained via these auctions and the application process to defend itself via legal proceedings.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12316-did-uniregistry-over-sell-the-auction-antitrust-risk Did Uniregistry Over Sell the Auction Antirust Risk, DomainIncite.com]Published 20 March 2013, Retrieved 29 march 2013</ref> | ||