Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Difference between revisions
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
Notable among the outputs of the final report was a failure to achieve consensus on two issues within Topic 35 - Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of [[Contention Set]]s. Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 received "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" designations. As a result, the Council approved the other recommendations but declined to submit the two contested recommendations to the board. | Notable among the outputs of the final report was a failure to achieve consensus on two issues within Topic 35 - Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of [[Contention Set]]s. Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 received "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" designations. As a result, the Council approved the other recommendations but declined to submit the two contested recommendations to the board. | ||
* Recommendation 35.2 would have subjected all private resolutions of contention sets (including private auctions) to the "Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements" contained in Recommendation 35.5. The requirements would obligate all parties of interest participating in a private resolution process to report their interest to ICANN within 72 hours of the resolution of the contention set. | * Recommendation 35.2 would have subjected all private resolutions of contention sets (including private auctions) to the "Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements" contained in Recommendation 35.5. The requirements would obligate all parties of interest participating in a private resolution process to report their interest to ICANN within 72 hours of the resolution of the contention set. | ||
* Recommendation 35.4 would have mandated that ICANN [[ | * Recommendation 35.4 would have mandated that ICANN [[auctions of last resort]] "must be conducted using the second-price auction method."<ref name="subpro" /> | ||
Those opposed to the adoption of the recommendations in Topic 35 were opposed to the use of private auctions as a mechanism of resolving contention sets. They stated that ICANN should prohibit private auctions, and that the protections proposed by the working group under Topic 35 were insufficient to prevent another round of "profiteering" off of failed applications for gTLD strings.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/AL-ALAC-ST-0121-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Minority Statement, Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref><ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/Minority%20Statement%20on%20Recommendation%2035.pdf Minority Statement of Alan Greenberg et al., Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref> | Those opposed to the adoption of the recommendations in Topic 35 were opposed to the use of private auctions as a mechanism of resolving contention sets. They stated that ICANN should prohibit private auctions, and that the protections proposed by the working group under Topic 35 were insufficient to prevent another round of "profiteering" off of failed applications for gTLD strings.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/AL-ALAC-ST-0121-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Minority Statement, Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref><ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/Minority%20Statement%20on%20Recommendation%2035.pdf Minority Statement of Alan Greenberg et al., Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref> | ||