Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model
Hi Jessica, Thanks very much for providing the flowchart. That’s really helpful. I’ve attached the document. Let’s see if this works. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: "Hooper, Jessica" <jhooper@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 5:13 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model Looks like the file didn’t come through. I’ll work with Julie to get it posted to the group. Thanks, Jessica From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model Team – During a recent plenary meeting pertaining to String Contention Resolution, there were calls from WG members to have ICANN Staff develop a workflow or diagram to show how Alternative 1 (Vickrey Auction Model) from the Summary Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTj...> would work and what that process would look like. Attached is a framework I put together when this idea first arose last year that illustrates the Vickrey Model and may address some of the outstanding questions around timing for objections… and it might save ICANN Staff from starting from scratch. Again, just a framework, a visual to help launch discussion. Thanks! Jessica Jessica Hooper | Senior Manager, Naming Operations | jhooper@verisign.com<mailto:jhooper@verisign.com> | O: 703-948-4553 |C: 1-571-230-2801 | verisign.com
Thanks Jessica for this. If we can get an editable version of this over to ICANN policy staff, there are a couple of things I think we need to add, and to change around. For example, to the extent we have Pre-Delegation Testing, that would actually occur as part of Transition to Delegation as opposed to before objections. Plus we would want to add in some of the other elements. This is a great chart and one we can easily build on, so thanks again! Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:21 PM To: Hooper, Jessica <jhooper@verisign.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model Hi Jessica, Thanks very much for providing the flowchart. That’s really helpful. I’ve attached the document. Let’s see if this works. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Hooper, Jessica" <jhooper@verisign.com<mailto:jhooper@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 5:13 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model Looks like the file didn’t come through. I’ll work with Julie to get it posted to the group. Thanks, Jessica From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model Team – During a recent plenary meeting pertaining to String Contention Resolution, there were calls from WG members to have ICANN Staff develop a workflow or diagram to show how Alternative 1 (Vickrey Auction Model) from the Summary Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTj...> would work and what that process would look like. Attached is a framework I put together when this idea first arose last year that illustrates the Vickrey Model and may address some of the outstanding questions around timing for objections… and it might save ICANN Staff from starting from scratch. Again, just a framework, a visual to help launch discussion. Thanks! Jessica Jessica Hooper | Senior Manager, Naming Operations | jhooper@verisign.com<mailto:jhooper@verisign.com> | O: 703-948-4553 |C: 1-571-230-2801 | verisign.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Jessica, Many thanks for developing the flowchart and its clarity. We could do the same for many other policy procedures / processes & see how they translate into a critical path in terms of a timeline , resource allocation , costings and budgets . Jeff , Steve , Karen , Has the GDD/ ICANN org started working on these implementation , operational & financial tasks yet that the Sub Pro could take a look at , as there are clearly implications in terms of our policy recommendations . thanks Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Dec 2019, at 16:15, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Jessica for this. If we can get an editable version of this over to ICANN policy staff, there are a couple of things I think we need to add, and to change around. For example, to the extent we have Pre-Delegation Testing, that would actually occur as part of Transition to Delegation as opposed to before objections. Plus we would want to add in some of the other elements.
This is a great chart and one we can easily build on, so thanks again!
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:21 PM To: Hooper, Jessica <jhooper@verisign.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model
Hi Jessica,
Thanks very much for providing the flowchart. That’s really helpful.
I’ve attached the document. Let’s see if this works.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: "Hooper, Jessica" <jhooper@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 5:13 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model
Looks like the file didn’t come through. I’ll work with Julie to get it posted to the group. Thanks, Jessica
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model
Team – During a recent plenary meeting pertaining to String Contention Resolution, there were calls from WG members to have ICANN Staff develop a workflow or diagram to show how Alternative 1 (Vickrey Auction Model) from the Summary Document would work and what that process would look like. Attached is a framework I put together when this idea first arose last year that illustrates the Vickrey Model and may address some of the outstanding questions around timing for objections… and it might save ICANN Staff from starting from scratch.
Again, just a framework, a visual to help launch discussion. Thanks! Jessica
Jessica Hooper | Senior Manager, Naming Operations | jhooper@verisign.com | O: 703-948-4553 |C: 1-571-230-2801 | verisign.com
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com _______________________________________________ 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.
Good evening: At first sight, this flowchart confirms my opinion that there should be NO auctions. The proposed procedure is so complex that, at best, it will inevitably be associated with considerable delays and costs. Not to speak of the lack of transparency. Who would be responsible for the publicly accountable recording of the whole procedure and its outcome? If there is no other resolution, strings in such contention should simply be withdrawn and held over for a future round. Regards CW
On 5 Dec 2019, at 23:21, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jessica,
Thanks very much for providing the flowchart. That’s really helpful.
I’ve attached the document. Let’s see if this works.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Hooper, Jessica via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Process Flow for Vickrey Auction Model
Team – During a recent plenary meeting pertaining to String Contention Resolution, there were calls from WG members to have ICANN Staff develop a workflow or diagram to show how Alternative 1 (Vickrey Auction Model) from the Summary Document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTj...> would work and what that process would look like. Attached is a framework I put together when this idea first arose last year that illustrates the Vickrey Model and may address some of the outstanding questions around timing for objections… and it might save ICANN Staff from starting from scratch.
Again, just a framework, a visual to help launch discussion. Thanks! Jessica
Jessica Hooper | Senior Manager, Naming Operations | jhooper@verisign.com <mailto:jhooper@verisign.com> | O: 703-948-4553 |C: 1-571-230-2801 | verisign.com <x-msg://10/verisign.com>
<Second Price Sealed Bid Vickery Auction Model - For SubPro PDP Discussion.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Em 6 de dez de 2019, à(s) 17:24:000, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu escreveu:
Good evening:
At first sight, this flowchart confirms my opinion that there should be NO auctions. The proposed procedure is so complex that, at best, it will inevitably be associated with considerable delays and costs. Not to speak of the lack of transparency. Who would be responsible for the publicly accountable recording of the whole procedure and its outcome?
If there is no other resolution, strings in such contention should simply be withdrawn and held over for a future round.
Such a mechanism could be called King Solomon's method, since it's equivalent to what he did to adjudicate a dispute between two mothers. We have experience using that method in previously registered .br domains, and it only made almost 10 thousand names to never be available. What we did to finally release those names into the market was exactly to move to an auction model. Whatever mechanism we decide on, even choosing an applicant by chance like a lotto game or doing a beauty pageant, needs to be something that is able to reach a decisive result. Rubens
Cool flowchart; really well thought through. I have these thoughts: 1) Doing some reading several weeks ago about Vickrey (second-price) auctions several weeks ago when this topic was discussed, I quickly realized that selecting from among various auction models is a complex task. There are papers illustrating where Vickrey auctions (as opposed to sealed-bid, top-priced auctions) were misapplied and led to results contrary to the policy goals. These missteps occurred in simple spectrum auctions where there was one asset type up for bid as opposed to our complex environment where there are multiple assets available, all valued differently and where the existence of some have an effect of the value of the others. The literature that I read, albeit casually, stated that these were complex issues to be thought through by qualified economists. I think it would be better to state our policy goals, mention that we have discussed sealed-bid auctions as a possible way to attain those policy goals (as compared to graduating bids) and also mention that we have discussed Vickrey auctions as a possible alternative to the more usually employed top-priced auctions. I understand the flow chart describes timing and does not differentiate between top-price and Vickrey sealed bid auctions but I added this comment as the Vickrey model was a center of the the discussion. 2) With regards to the timing of the sealed bid, I think having the submission of the sealed bid so far in advance of the asset acquisition would work against many of the policy goals. As I understand it, the TLD bidder could be awarded many months or more than a year after the bids are submitted, There will be a limit on the number of delegations monthly, objections, IRPs and similarity check disputes that delay the process. There will be great changes in information during that time and those changes will affect the value of the asset for which bids are received. The value of a potential TLD will change based on the number of TLDs for which there are applications, the number of TLDs addressing the same market segment, the types of companies bidding on the TLDs, how the market place evolved over that year or more, how the Guidebook and rules have been changed by ICANN, and what kind of objections or IRPs there are. The bids should be close in time to the award so that the bidders can fairly assess the value of the asset. A bid made months or years in advance will always be “wrong” because the change in information will change the value of the asset. At least, this would result in a party over paying or underpaying. More likely, bidders will drop out if they have realized they have grossly overpaid - this after years of planning and investment. It will certainly be daunting to smaller firms or new entrants. If a sealed bid auction is preferred (Vickrey or not), it should be done at a time when all parties can adequately value the asset for which they are bidding. 3) Regarding our policy goals, A) I am not sure sealed bid auctions prevent over-paying - as opposed to an incremental auction where one party bids $1 over the closest rival. It might be the case, but it might not be. In any case, I think value is in the mind of the beholder and we should not be trying to prevent an unintended outcome by an uninformed applicant, and we should not force our valuation methods on others. By many definitions, one over or under pays nearly every time there is some sort of auction. B) I also do not know exactly how to prevent parties from making private agreements. Parties in contention can talk and then some can “drop out.” It is difficult to write and enforce a rule set to prevent this. C) It seems that a policy goal should be to put the TLD in the hands of those where it would be the most effectively utilized, That is the economic theory behind auctions I hope this is helpful. Kurt
On Dec 6, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Em 6 de dez de 2019, à(s) 17:24:000, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> escreveu:
Good evening:
At first sight, this flowchart confirms my opinion that there should be NO auctions. The proposed procedure is so complex that, at best, it will inevitably be associated with considerable delays and costs. Not to speak of the lack of transparency. Who would be responsible for the publicly accountable recording of the whole procedure and its outcome?
If there is no other resolution, strings in such contention should simply be withdrawn and held over for a future round.
Such a mechanism could be called King Solomon's method, since it's equivalent to what he did to adjudicate a dispute between two mothers. We have experience using that method in previously registered .br domains, and it only made almost 10 thousand names to never be available. What we did to finally release those names into the market was exactly to move to an auction model.
Whatever mechanism we decide on, even choosing an applicant by chance like a lotto game or doing a beauty pageant, needs to be something that is able to reach a decisive result.
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 (6)
-
Jeff Neuman -
Julie Hedlund -
Kurt Pritz -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Phil Buckingham -
Rubens Kuhl