Hi Sam,

I’m still having difficulties figuring out what the problem is with these registration, and would be grateful if you could elaborate on your position. Failing to understand your reasoning, I agree with Nicolas’ opinion; that initiating a multistakeholder discussion aimed at giving priority to applicants on a “public interest” basis is both difficult and unnecessary.

Some more in-line:

On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I will give a short response to these Adam's comments. One of the unfortunate features of the administration of the .nyc cityTLD is that a second level string, in this case the MentalHealth.nyc with multiple applicants is facing an auction process where community applicants have fewer rights than commercial applicants using the ICANN private auction process for gTLDs.

I’m not sure how community applicants have fewer rights than commercial applicants. The rules are the same for both of them. I would certainly understand if what you meant was that resorting to auctions in principle makes it easier for commercial applicants, with more financial resources at their disposal, to win. However, running a gTLD is a commercial business. If a commercial business wins the bid for MentalHealth.nyc, there is nothing stopping the community applicant from applying for any other string under any other gTLD.

> In ICANN gTLDs with multiple qualified applicants the commercial interests have transparency as to who the other applicants are, and are are encouraged to collaborate among themselves. If that fails and they resort to ICANN private auctions, the winners compensate the losers. There should be at least a discussion within ICANN as to whether or not a similar process should required of registries when an initial new gTLD "landrush" produces multiple second level applicants. In short, this New York community health group is only asking: "What about the same       transparency and the same private auction rules that apply to new gTLDs?”.

Like I said earlier, I don’t see why this would be necessary. I don’t see why a registry can’t auction off second-level domain registrations any way it sees fit, as long as there is a clear process for engaging in one that competing applicants would be required to agree to. In the case of the .nyc gTLD, the landrush private auction rules are clear, and competing applicants agree to them. There is no need for the winner to compensate the loser either, as there is no application fee similar to that of applying for a new gTLD.

I can’t say my disagreeing with you is based on any informed reasoning, but from what I’ve read so far, I’m just failing to see what the problem is.

Thanks.

Amr