The European Commission filed a comment on the recently updated ICANN’s New gTLD Auction Rules.
To summarize the European Commission is “deeply concerned about the implications that the Auction Rules in the
gTLD program may have for the protection of public policy interests, competition, openness and innovation.”
“ICANN should implement Auction Rules that are consistent with its Bylaws, its non-for profit status, the objectives of the new gTLD Program and the Applicant Guidebook to promote competition, diversity, innovation and consumer choice.”
For anyone that has interest the comment period with ICANN closes today at 23.59 UTC.
Here is the statement by the European Commission:
We are deeply concerned about the implications that the Auction Rules in the gTLD program may have for the protection of public policy interests, competition, openness and innovation. ”
“As a general principle, ICANN should implement Auction Rules that are consistent with its Bylaws, its non-for profit status, the objectives of the new gTLD Program and the Applicant Guidebook to promote competition, diversity, innovation and consumer choice. As expressed in several comments already submitted during the comment period, the current Auction Rules are advantageous for portfolio applicants rather than for small, innovative and community applicants, which is at odds with the “diversity and innovation” policy that ICANN seeks to promote.
It would be desirable to give these applicants a more even playing field when they come up against larger portfolio holders in the contention process. Also, ICANN’s auction rules has not yet proven convincing to the community and deserves being revisited in light of the input received.
2. Relevant GAC advice
The European Commission regards positively the explicit mention in the Auction Rules of the need to “resolve any applicable GAC advice” prior to the participation in the auction process, as part of the applicant’s “eligibility” criteria, but regrets the lack of reference to “community applications” or applications with community support, despite the reiterated GAC advise. In this regard the European Commission seizes this opportunity to recall the following passages of recent GAC advice:
* “The GAC advises the board that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information.” (Beijing Communique)
* “The GAC reiterates its advice from the Beijing Communiqué regarding preferential treatment for all applications which have demonstrable community support, while noting community concerns over the high costs for pursuing a Community Objection process as well as over the high threshold for passing Community Priority Evaluation”. (Durban Communique)
* “The GAC requests a briefing on the public policy implications of holding auctions to resolve string contention (including community applications).” (Buenos Aires Communique).
It is essential that the outcome of the briefing on the public policy implications of holding auctions requested in the Buenos Aires GAC Communique and the reflections of the GAC on this particular issue are fully taken into account when defining the Auction Rules.
Particularly, the auction process should not be initiated until the GAC’s briefing request is duly addressed by the ICANN Board.
3. ALAC – Community applications statement
It is important to make a specific reference to the At-Large Community (ALAC) statement of 9.08.2013 on preferential treatment for community applications in string contention; ALAC stressed that some of the new gTLD applications that
are intended for communities and have wide public support were not submitted as community applications; those applications are currently in contention with others not designed for the benefit of specific communities and driven purely by commercial considerations. In this regard the European Commission (consistent with its position in the GAC) fully endorses the GAC view that community applications and applications with community support should be given preferential treatment in the new gTLD string contention resolution process, and remind the clear above mentioned GAC Beijing and Durban Communiques.
4. Security and consumer protection
Security and consumer protection are fundamental public policy objectives.
Therefore we endorse those comments proposing that the winning applicant is contractually required to ensure that all security related gTLDs adopt technologies that improve the level of trust of Internet users. A “secure” gTLD implies that the resources offered are truly secure and operating under specific policies that warrant a dedicated level of security to end users. It is therefore contrary to this public policy interest that the winning applicant is decided through an auction process that may simply favour deep pocket applications.
Therefore we will repeat again our concern about the negative impact that auctions may have for the preservation and enhancement of the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet, as expressed during the Buenos Aires GAC meeting: “The European Commission believes that in the new gTLD program, ICANN should aim not just to maintain, but also enhance the level of consumer protection and confidence in gTLDs. ICANN should therefore take this social and community responsibility into account in their implementation plan. It is our understanding that trusted
domains such as .safe, .secure and .security risks being awarded to applicants based only upon the price they are willing to pay in an auction.
We therefore urge ICANN, in the interest of fostering innovative solutions that enhance global security, not to allow purely commercial interests to prevail in the delegation of these domains.
5. Negotiations between applicants prior to the Auction process
Over and above, there seems not to be any incentive for financially strong applicants to solve the contention “through voluntary agreement among the involved applicants”.
This solution places an unnecessary burden on applicants and departs from the artificial assumption that parties are eager to negotiate.
6. Destination (use) of Auction funds
We also note the lack of clarity as regards the destination of the significant funds that ICANN will receive as a result of these auctions; it is therefore highly recommended that ICANN begins a consultation process with the community to determine the allocation of the funds gathered through this process, with a focus on its use for community support, capacity building and engagement of stakeholders in least developed nations.
7. Unilateral powers to modify Auction Rules
ICANN shall not be entitled in its sole discretion to amend these Auction Rules “for any auction at any time and for any reason prior to the deposit deadline for that auction”.
The abovementioned unilateral power to change the rules currently under negotiation only contributes to increase applicants’
uncertainty. The European Commission fully supports that “Any proposed changes, at a minimum, should be announced publicly at least 30 days in advance of any auction, and should be for good cause based on exigent circumstances”.
We are confident that community input received will allow ICANN to amend the current draft Auction Rules (version 2013.12.12) in a manner consistent with ICANN’s objectives and fully rooted in the principle of fairness.
dotmusic says
These are exactly the same arguments we made in recent Public Comments in regards to Auctions and the new material changes ICANN is proposing in regards to Specification 13 i.e giving preferential treatment to brand owners while neglecting GAC Advice to make changes to give preferential treatment to Community Applicants with demonstrable support.
We made some public comments on new gTLD auctions favoring portfolio applicants (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-rules-16dec13/pdfMZiXEX4Eiw.pdf):
—
According to the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.3 Auction, ICANN states that “it is expected that most cases of contention will be resolved by the community priority evaluation, or through voluntary agreement among the involved applicants” and that “In practice, ICANN expects that most contention cases will be resolved through other means before reaching the auction stage.” ICANN also clarifies that any monies derived from auction “funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN’s Mission and Core Values and also allows ICANN to maintain its not-for profit status”…
…The auction mechanism prepared by Power Auctions LLC for ICANN fails to address these core issues and align its Auction Rules to the Applicant Guidebook and ICANN’s own Bylaws to promote competition, innovation and diversity. ICANN holds the power to adjust its auction rules to be consistent with its non-for profit status, its Mission and Core Values and to promote effective competition given the current status of the new gTLD Program which is dominated by Portfolio Applicants…
… ICANN’s expectations per the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) that “most” contention sets being resolved “voluntarily” or “through other means before reaching auction stage” have not been met. As such, the AGB own expectations have failed and as it stands favors a few “deep pocketed” players and more importantly puts in question ICANN’s role as a non-for profit organization by structuring the new gTLD Program and Auctions in a manner that maximizes profit for ICANN. This becomes a serious concern when public resources – such as semantic gTLDs – are given to a few, select companies who can afford to “buy” up the entire generic, non-branded gTLD space at the expense of other smaller players who could offer a more specialized, niche approach – such as community applicants serving their corresponding communities with registration policies and rules that cater to those entities without the fear of commoditizing gTLDs…
… The Auction Rules have done little to incentivize partnerships and ICANN’s role is constrained to “give time to applicants to negotiate amongst them”. The current Auctions Rules actually ensure the opposite to happen: a select few competing solely on financial power irrespective of any single Applicant’s innovative, niche and more focused approach. Rewarding a gTLD based on financial prowess alone is not aligned with ICANN’s non-for profit status and new gTLD objectives to promote competition, diversity, innovation and consumer choice…
… Another overarching issue is some Applicants, such as Community Applicants, have applications with restrictive policies (e.g Eligibility Requirements, Name Selection, Content and Use, Enforcement). It is indisputable that Community Applicants can not compete in an auction with an Applicant with an “open” application since “open” Applications lack such restrictions. No-one can dismiss the fact that the ROI on “open” applications is much higher than that of “restricted” applications giving non-community Applicants a “near-definite” assurance to win an auction unless a Community Applicant bids higher that their expected ROI…
…If Community Applicants choose to outbid non-community Applicants beyond their expected ROI, the unintended consequence would be the Community Applicant would face a certainty of registry failure since they would have spent all their monies which would otherwise be used for operations and marketing of the gTLD and given the restrictive nature of their gTLD would face an impossible feat in generating profits that would bring a positive ROI after over-bidding in the ICANN Auction…
—
.MUSIC also made some public comments to ICANN, which is proposing to give brands preferential treatment (Specification 13) (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/pdf2AiufIWAfi.pdf):
—
…If ICANN implements such a change in the Applicant Guidebook to give preferential treatment to one type of Applicant, then, under the same token, ICANN should also lower the threshold of 14 points to pass Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) to community-based Applicants with demonstrable community support…
…The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) advised ICANN in its Beijing Communique that:
“In those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information”
…The GAC reiterated its advice to ICANN from the Beijing Communiqué in its Durban Communique for ICANN to give:
“…preferential treatment for all applications which have demonstrable community support, while noting community concerns over the high costs for pursuing a Community Objection process as well as over the high threshold for passing Community Priority Evaluation.”
…GAC’s advice to ICANN was to enable:
“better account of community views, and improve outcomes for communities, within the existing framework, independent of whether those communities have utilized ICANN’s formal community processes to date.”
…ICANN has yet to make any GAC-advised changes in the CPE process to improve “outcomes to communities” and give “preferential treatment” to community-based applicants with authentic, “demonstrable support” to pass the CPE threshold given the “high threshold for passing Community Priority Evaluation.”
…If ICANN agrees to the proposed Specification 13 then ICANN should also adopt a similar proposition which follows GAC Advise to give preferential treatment to community-applicants with demonstrable support.
—
In light of the EU settling its search-related anti-trust probe against Google, it certain the next step for the European Commission (and GAC) is to look at Google’s (and Amazon’s) involvement in the new gTLD Program and how ICANN accommodated them to easily “buy” new gTLDs in a landgrab of epic proportions.
ICANN needs to serious consider these issues and the repercussions especially since ICANN never consulted with the community in regards to the selection of Power Auction without a formal RFP and also without requiring Power Auctions to align the auctions with ICANN’s Bylaws to promote competition and diversity. Power Auctions seems to have the upper hand given the 4% fee and the millions of dollars they will generate through an auction process which was created for profit maximization
I think more people need to read TheDomains.com auction post at: http://www.thedomains.com/2014/02/04/54377/ and hold ICANN accountable in regards to its entire approach on the auction process, down to the provider. Sealed Bid is the way to go. Perhaps RightoftheDot and other auction providers should seek some answers on how PowerAuction was selected and why such a complicated auction process was selected that is contrary to ICAN’s Bylaws as a non-for profit.
Constantine Roussos
.MUSIC
http://music.us
https://twitter.com/mus