Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes
Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Note that for agenda item 2 below, for the purposes of stimulating discussion on the Private Resolution/Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort topics, the WG Co-Chairs have taken what we believe to be the majority positions and converted them into the attached proposal. We understand that the substance remains under discussion, but after taking into account all of the comments, and the many deliberations of the Working Group, this proposal will hopefully represent something that WG members can all live with. 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52... -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions), page 1 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie
Hi there, Regarding the attached PDF “Auction discussion points”: In Option 2 we have two reveals: one is revealing only the strings, the second the applicants as well. Prior to the reveal of applicants we establish the contention sets – and require contention set members to place an “auction of last resort” sealed bid. My question is: How are the “contention sets” being established? * Like in the 2012 round? * Or “automatically”: only identical strings? If we strive to establish contention sets like in 2012 – we run into a big problem: that process took many years. Think “string similarity objection”. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 10:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Note that for agenda item 2 below, for the purposes of stimulating discussion on the Private Resolution/Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort topics, the WG Co-Chairs have taken what we believe to be the majority positions and converted them into the attached proposal. We understand that the substance remains under discussion, but after taking into account all of the comments, and the many deliberations of the Working Group, this proposal will hopefully represent something that WG members can all live with. 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52... -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions), page 1 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, Julie
On 1 May 2020, at 19:12, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi there,
Regarding the attached PDF “Auction discussion points”:
In Option 2 we have two reveals: one is revealing only the strings, the second the applicants as well. Prior to the reveal of applicants we establish the contention sets – and require contention set members to place an “auction of last resort” sealed bid.
My question is: How are the “contention sets” being established? · Like in the 2012 round? · Or “automatically”: only identical strings?
If we strive to establish contention sets like in 2012 – we run into a big problem: that process took many years. Think “string similarity objection”.
Contention sets indeed might require more evaluations (Geo, CPE) and objection processing to be done, so I suggest making it clear to bidders where some other member in the contention set has self-identified as Geo or Community. We would still require them to bid, and use that bid if no other criteria ends up settling the contention set. But I suggest bidding to only occur after ICANN's own string similarity analysis, so cases like unicom/unicorn would already appear in the strings reveal as in contention, while the final size and shape of the contention sets might be changed later down the road by string confusion objections. Since the bidders (and everyone) would know the full list of strings, they can assess the risk of a string confusion objection to add more applications to fight with the winning bid. This is also a reason to limit disclosure of the bid amounts until after contention sets are finalised and new bids are requested from the applicants initially not in contention for the contention sets formed after the first reveal. Such amounts need to be disclosed at some point, and any limit of filing appeals, RfRs etc. should only start counting after disclosing of the winning bids. Linking to another topic, do we also want for strings reveal day to also feature the results of name collision risk assessments ? It might be useful for bidders to know whether they are going for a smooth path to delegation or to a convoluted mitigation framework design / evaluation path. Rubens
Not to mention when/how to integrate (allowable) Application Change Requests for changes in applied-for string to resolve contentions which may or may not require revelation of applicant identities or Application Change Request resulting from a combination of business or JVs which would certainly require revelation of applicant identities. Justine On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 06:55, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
On 1 May 2020, at 19:12, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi there,
Regarding the attached PDF “Auction discussion points”:
In Option 2 we have two reveals: one is revealing only the strings, the second the applicants as well. Prior to the reveal of applicants we establish the contention sets – and require contention set members to place an “auction of last resort” sealed bid.
My question is: How are the “contention sets” being established? · Like in the 2012 round? · Or “automatically”: only identical strings?
If we strive to establish contention sets like in 2012 – we run into a big problem: that process took many years. Think “string similarity objection”.
Contention sets indeed might require more evaluations (Geo, CPE) and objection processing to be done, so I suggest making it clear to bidders where some other member in the contention set has self-identified as Geo or Community. We would still require them to bid, and use that bid if no other criteria ends up settling the contention set.
But I suggest bidding to only occur after ICANN's own string similarity analysis, so cases like unicom/unicorn would already appear in the strings reveal as in contention, while the final size and shape of the contention sets might be changed later down the road by string confusion objections. Since the bidders (and everyone) would know the full list of strings, they can assess the risk of a string confusion objection to add more applications to fight with the winning bid.
This is also a reason to limit disclosure of the bid amounts until after contention sets are finalised and new bids are requested from the applicants initially not in contention for the contention sets formed after the first reveal. Such amounts need to be disclosed at some point, and any limit of filing appeals, RfRs etc. should only start counting after disclosing of the winning bids.
Linking to another topic, do we also want for strings reveal day to also feature the results of name collision risk assessments ? It might be useful for bidders to know whether they are going for a smooth path to delegation or to a convoluted mitigation framework design / evaluation path.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Julie Hedlund -
Justine Chew -
Rubens Kuhl