Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Susan Payne
21:56
SOI update - I am now a member of the IRP-IOT. officially this happened in November but the re-populated group is now having its first meeting this week
Julie Hedlund
22:23
Thanks Susan and noted
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
27:37
Can I get the lazy person's link to the doc please? :)
Julie Hedlund
28:14
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
28:16
What does "collusion" mean? How does it vary from creative problem solving by enlightened companies that don't buy into the "enrich ICANN" orthodoxy?
Julie Hedlund
28:29
Here you go @Kristine :-)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
28:39
Thank you!
Olga Cavalli
31:19
Hello sorry for being late
Elaine Pruis
31:34
@Paul, Are TLDs public assets? If not, what are they? How do you justify your answer to that question?We’ve created a MSM that defines ICANN as a steward of this resource. If we don’t treat TLDs as public assets, we decrease ICANN’s legitimacy.
Susan Payne
32:35
@Elaine, I would disagree with the public asset - certainly so far as a dot Brand is concerned
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
33:37
Statement of ICANN Board: "Request information on likelihood and types of abuse resulting from new procedures: One of our major concerns in reading the discussions in the Supplementary Final report relates to new procedures that may be open to abuse in ways that have not yet been understood. We would like to better understand the analysis that has gone into determining the likelihood, and types, of abuse that may open up with any new procedures. We believe that any new recommendations should guard against bad faith applications to the extent possible. These concerns mostly center on the issues of auctions of last resort and on private auctions. . . We also take note of the abuse that becomes possible in alterations to the change request mechanisms.(https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-initial-30oct18/2018q4/000002.html)"
karen.lentz
36:04
Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values.
karen.lentz
36:13
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/attachments/20180926/a3fc7066/2018-09-26CherineChalabytoCLOandJeffNeumanBoardCommentonSubproInitialReport2-0001.pdf
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:30
COMMENT: To the degree that public comment did NOT support elimination of private negotiations to resolve string contention, we aren't really in the realm of "public assets" in our policy work and we must, however, try to eliminate "gaming' without taking away private negotiations. Submitting sealed bids at the time of application seems appropriate, but if there is a Community Priority Application or if there is a Intent-To-Object is filed, then the bids should be able to be revised because the value of the TLD is different in terms of costs the applicant is facing.
Elaine Pruis
37:55
If private resolution results in $$$ changing hands instead of funding some community agreed upon ICANN function (Like Root zone governance or RIRs) It does affect everyone.
Elaine Pruis
38:31
We have an opportunity to bolster ICANN’s effectiveness and legitimacy
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
38:38
but no one had to apply to start with. The funds are not an ICANN entitlement.
Phil Buckingham
39:08
collusion definition , in this context , two parties or more coming together ( privately) to join forces prior to outbidding other applicants to win a contention set ? what is wrong with that ?
Donna Austin, Neustar
39:16
@Elaine, I don't agree. The program should not be a means for ICANN to profit from the program either.
Donna Austin, Neustar
39:57
We have agreed that the program is intended to be cost-recovery.
Elaine Pruis
41:03
@Donna, Except, see 2012 auction of last resort funds.
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:22
@Elaine, as evidenced by the CCWG on Auction Proceeds that money from last resort auctions is not intended for ICANN's day-to-day operations.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
44:23
+1 Donna
karen.lentz
45:33
@Anne, I believe it was a comment on the Initial Report
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:45
Agree with Donna - Auction Proceeds are actually intended to benefit "good causes" in the Internet Community - see Proposed Final Report of the CCWG Auction Proceeds - public comment due mid-feb.
Poncelet Ileleji
47:55
I concur too with Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:44
Exactly Jeff - that is the point.
Elaine Pruis
49:19
“good causes” does not equal paying applicants to go away.
Phil Buckingham
50:18
Donna , I agree . currently from R1 ICANN has profited by $234 m from the last resort public auction . that monies has not been returned to applicants . this was monies raised by applicants from private investors . as we know ICANN is using these proceeds to bolster its reserves shortfall caused by overspending its budgets !
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:44
No its not Alan because the funds must be used strictly in accordance with ICANN's mission - the knitting needles example is inaccurate.
Steve Chan
51:18
Jeff, hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:35
Good point @Steve
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:40
Thanks Steve.
christopher wilkinson
52:44
@Alan +1. Suggest “Exclude collusion, profiteering and/or speculation…”
Alan Greenberg
54:40
Anne, you are correct that knitting needles was a red herring. And maybe the need to restrict to mission is a reason why we don't want ICANN auctions.So we could say that private auctions are only allowed if the participants or related entities cannot benefit (ie, the $ must go to charity!)
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:56
I agree with Susan and I don't support 3. as a goal primarily because it is for the applicant to decide what a TLD.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
56:16
+1 Susan that everyone not party to any form of private resolution is making assumptions about facts they weren't privy to
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
56:52
I think that is NOT a problem and it should not be a goal.
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
57:16
Donna - sorry....I will get to you next
Susan Payne
59:58
+1 to donna's point
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:00:07
+1 Donna
Elaine Pruis
01:00:08
I’d be ok with removing the first part about overpaying, if we keep “Encourage applicant to bid their true value for a TLD”
Susan Payne
01:00:38
how about we encourage "realistic value"
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:01:11
Why would an applicant not bid/pay a "true" or "realistic" value? I don't understand. Either bid/pay what you think it's worth or not.
Elaine Pruis
01:02:06
That language keeps to the spirit of not up-bidding in auction to get a bigger payout as the loser
Ken Stubbs
01:02:08
+1 donna
Ken Stubbs
01:02:55
need to be identified as such
Phil Buckingham
01:03:03
Donna , maybe a solution to sealed bids . allow a second or even a third bid say 3 months before the auction is going to happen - so that each party has more info to make a revised sealed bid ?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:32
For anyone considering the use of Auction Proceeds, the Proposed Final Report outlines the Objectives - and it's quite unlikely, in my opinion, that these Objectives would be thrown out the window for Subsequent Rounds - (1)Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems, (2) Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, (3) Benefit the open and interoperable Internet. Accordingly, those arguing for "public asset" approach might reconsider the value of ICANN-supervised auctions as a mechanism of last resort. Grant-making is to be done by a panel of Independent Evalution Panel of Experts.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:04:08
+1 Alan.
christopher wilkinson
01:07:34
We should not lose sight of the fact that there is an enormous disparity of resources, globally, among potential applicants. We have to have a level playing field, irrespective of applicant support.
Elaine Pruis
01:08:44
I think there was… If they didn’t resolve they ended up in ICANN auction of last resort, right?
Susan Payne
01:09:31
ok thanks
Paul McGrady
01:09:49
1. Modify strings, 2. run as JVs (change applicants); 3. build use restrictions (PICs that respond to .brand concerns)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:10:24
Speaking personally (not as CSG rep to Auction Proceeds), it would be great if everyone commented by February 14 in favor of use of Auction Proceeds for Applicant Support.
karen.lentz
01:10:50
Applicants in a contention set were notified when an auction was scheduled - they could also request to postpone
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:11:11
Thanks Karen
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:23
Hello all, sorry for being late
Phil Buckingham
01:11:28
the biggest problem is that applicants , once that found out that they were in a contention set , then needed to raise additional / huge sums of money to bid & win the auction . they need to have factor in this huge cost in their original financial model . this was not a requirement in RI financial model
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:42
To Paul's point and perhaps what Kristine mentioned earlier in the call, if other options were available to resolve contention sets that may reduce the possibility of profiteering from the program, which I believe is the primary concern.
Greg Shatan
01:16:25
“bid rigging” would be a more well-defined term, if it fits (rather than “collusion”)
martinsutton
01:16:26
@Phil - an applicant should already factor in contingency in the event they could be in a contention set.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:47
Sorry Jeff, can you restate the question.
Greg Shatan
01:17:49
Can’t be in favor of bid rigging, can we? ;-)
Elaine Pruis
01:18:06
Some version of this goal is necessary to address the board’s stated concerns
Greg Shatan
01:18:49
Bid rigging is a competition/antitrust term, and definitely not legal activity.
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:56
I am not sure ICANN is in position to say what is legal
Elaine Pruis
01:19:18
“applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.”
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:19:26
Any reference to "Exclude" or "reduce" collusion will be a problem because private resolutions are PRIVATE and this is going to open up a whole mess of issues.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:19:50
with people speculating about if there was
Greg Shatan
01:20:00
Collusion covers a variety of potential practices and is not particularly specific.
Greg Shatan
01:20:10
Bid rigging is a specific form of collusion.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:56
I think reduce the risk of profiteering should be a separate goal from collusion and/or speculation.
Susan Payne
01:21:06
but do we agree that "collusion" means illegal/improper practices and not "private settlement". If we don't agree that then we need a different term instead of "collusion"
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:16
@Susan, yes.
Alan Greenberg
01:22:39
Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy. A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage is an example of collusion. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:55
Borrowing from a trademark phrase - is there a way for a party to challenge "bona fide intent to use" a TLD? (versus applying for purposes of resale?)
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:36
I doubt that it will prevent situation where the Registry is acquired after the RA execution
Alan Greenberg
01:23:48
That comes from the Wikipedia but in tern from a textbook on economic principles.
Phil Buckingham
01:25:29
collusion is far too strong in this context . would a sealed bid solution eliminate collusion ?
Elaine Pruis
01:26:31
@Phil, yes, it would.
Elaine Pruis
01:27:34
Creative applicants will find a way to resolve their contention at any point, but sealed bid cuts most of the opportunity for “unseemly cooperation”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:50
I am not sure "horse trading" is actually a form of collusion - not if private resolution is permitted. However, we should develop policy to deter application for purposes of resale and profiting from that resale - in other words, that is bad faith.
Paul McGrady
01:30:44
I still have no idea what "collusion" means in this context.
avri doria
01:32:58
Just want to note that Board did not use the terms 'collusion' or 'profiteering' in its comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:19
Well noted Avri
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:46
but it is terms we have in our current ;goals
avri doria
01:33:54
I can see that
martinsutton
01:34:01
@Avri - I think that us why point 11 is included to clarify
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:54
'<personal vevw> I think transparency is a greater importance or Higher order goal/objective, for uas to consider
Phil Buckingham
01:36:25
if I knew as an applicant that I was in a contention set against Amazon my contention set strategy would be totally if I wasn’t . therefore I would need to know who the other applicants are in the contention set . again would a sealed bid eliminate this problem .
Ken Stubbs
01:36:53
we have to be careful to define "reasonable"
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:37:17
Is it actually possible for the program to impose such transparency requirements?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:39:44
resolving contention more quickly will require all prior elements of the application process (i.e. evaluations, objections, etc) to also move more quickly
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:39:51
If we have predictability and transparency, resolution of contention sets arguably would be quicker.
Phil Buckingham
01:40:26
absolutely must be . there has to be a very very clear timetable / timeline in place that icann commits to.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:41:22
Is this an identified problem? Did a significant number take too long?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:41:36
(I'm sure a few did, but is this a broad problem?)
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:41:50
As Donna stated, it could be a problem
christopher wilkinson
01:41:53
I thought we were going to impose a sunset deadline for contentions in the next round and that the few outstanding cases in the previous round would be grandmothered if necessary.
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:42:07
...sorry for the start of the subsequent oudn
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:42:10
round
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:42:24
+1 Susan
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:42:31
So are we solving for a hypothetical problem?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:42:33
+1 Susan
martinsutton
01:43:13
Agree Susan - expeditiously and efficiently would be appropriate.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:43:22
Are we aware of a contention resolution problem that existed, absent of items like accountability, etc
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:01
We can provide a caveat that addresses my concern to impeding a future round, for example make the strings still in contention unavailable.
Elaine Pruis
01:44:02
.music is a good example
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:38
Time check... coming up to 5 mins to end of call
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:44:42
@ Elaine .. but wasn’t it accountability mechanisms holding up .music and not the actual contention resolution
martinsutton
01:44:45
Limitation of postponements could be helpful, as you suggested Jeff
Susan Payne
01:45:15
@elaine, sure, but that was due to multiple accountability mechs being engaged, rather than due to some failure of the auction processes
martinsutton
01:45:23
Perhaps one member in contention could postpone once, then any additional postponements must be mutually agreed by all members
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:36
It's very important
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:09
I don't understand what 8. means in practice.
Paul McGrady
01:46:13
8 looks like Policy 8a. looks like Implementation detail
Elaine Pruis
01:46:24
Thanks, I understand the question now.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:46:46
i think we need to better define “new entrants” so as to not simply introduce subsidiaries of existing players
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:06
I don't think 8a is an implementation detail.
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:47:10
@Paul - regardless of policy or implementation, this WG has jurisdiction to cover both should we choose to.
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:17
This is as important as any other detail we have been discussing...
Jeff Neuman (SubPro CoChair)
01:47:22
We are a unique WG that way
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:41
will we continue HERE next meeting?
Steve Chan
01:50:09
16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:13
Good discussion today, I look forward to more in our next call (or on list in between times) Bye for now...
Annebeth Lange
01:50:32
Interesting discussion. Bye for now :-)
avri doria
01:50:35
bye, thanks
karen.lentz
01:50:37
Thank you
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:38
Thank you