Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
23:49
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 22 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Jim Prendergast
24:51
very low attendance for sure
Steve Chan
28:47
Supplemental Initial Report here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures/supplemental-report-01nov18-en.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
29:21
hello all, will use chat due to an early hour
Julie Bisland
29:51
Welcome, Maxim
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
34:26
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/12/03/domain-extensions/new-gtlds/minds-machines-gets-another-4-4-million-from-losing-new-gtld-auctions/https://onlinedomain.com/2014/11/11/domain-extensions/new-gtlds/minds-machines-gains-8-4-million-by-losing-book-cloud-dog-site-style-new-gtlds/https://onlinedomain.com/2015/03/06/domain-extensions/new-gtlds/minds-machine-nets-1-68m-withdrawing-from-app-soccer-beauty/https://www.namecheap.com/blog/domain-auctions-new-tld-treasure-chest/
Donna Austin, Neustar
35:06
Did we ever discuss contention set resolution that didn't have a monetary element to it, such as a random draw?
Steve Chan
35:39
@Donna, yes, that was in the Supplemental Initial Report
Donna Austin, Neustar
35:52
Thanks Steve
Steve Chan
36:12
@Jeff, one real quick comment
Paul McGrady
36:52
But keep in mind that the Board is an interested party. Every dollar that goes to not-ICANN is a dollar not going to ICANN.
Maxim Alzoba
39:21
until RA execution it is not a TLD, just an application, so it is more secondary market for applications
Jim Prendergast
40:24
Steve is right on. We now know a lot more than we did in 2012. My sense is the Board is looking at this with a much wider lens than some future possible applicants or their service providers. This is a process to allocate a public good. It’s not about making it convenient for large applicants to bid on dozens of tlds nor for people to game the system to profit from losing applications. It’s not what some want to hear but if you look at it through the lens of how competition authorities are looking at this, it should be.
Justine Chew
40:57
@Paul, in this instance, I would say the Board as an interested party for ICANN is acceptable. In fact, I would be alarmed if the Board did not express a concern.
Justine Chew
41:41
+1 Jim
Paul McGrady
42:41
Everyone now knows that the ICANN Board will raid the funds raised (since they have). So, I'm not sure how we excise out the Board's financial interest here. I'm not saying it is wrong for them to be financially interested, I'm just saying that the Board's comments have to be read in the greater context of what has actually happened with auction funds.
Justine Chew
44:28
I have a question re your description of Donna's proposal.
Justine Chew
45:14
@Jeff
Jim Prendergast
46:00
once you reveal who has applied for what, you open the door for collusion. that is a major issue we cant ignore.
Kurt Pritz
46:43
My knowledge is somewhat dated but I have never known the ICANN Board or staff to plan on or anticipate auction revenues nor discuss the issue in any way other than what is best for the overall stability, security and resilience of the DNS or other than in ways than would promote competition and choice for internet users
Donna Austin, Neustar
46:47
@Jim, maybe, maybe not, but you rule out collusion at the auction of last resort.
Justine Chew
47:32
@Donna I think it is an important detail
Paul McGrady
47:58
Could this be reduced to a writing we could all look at? It is pretty late here and I'm having trouble tracking it verbally.
Donna Austin, Neustar
48:16
Correct
Justine Chew
48:29
@Jeff, great thanks for the clarfication
Steve Chan
48:40
@Paul, I can pull up the email thread at least
Paul McGrady
49:35
@Jeff - thanks. so many, many emails.
Paul McGrady
49:53
@Steve, thanks.
Jim Prendergast
49:55
the proposal on Thursday was only parties who were in contention were notified they were in contention.- not with whom or what strings. If that notifification and the resulting period for putting in a bid is short - week a most- to limit collusions - that is something that might work.
Elaine Pruis
50:44
it would be good to have a matrix that indicates which options address the stated concerns.
Elaine Pruis
51:12
ie, immediate bids vs post contention reveal bids
Paul McGrady
51:42
+1 Elaine
Steve Chan
53:15
From the staff side, we think it would also be good to summarize the stated concerns, which can likely be mostly pulled from the Supplemental Initial Report.
Maxim Alzoba
53:31
what happens with equal bids? (people tend to use nice looking round numbers with zeroes)
Justine Chew
53:54
@Maxim, go to random draw?
Jim Prendergast
54:36
The expert we had on the call suggested people don't do that. dont bid 200,000 bid $200,001 But in the very unlikely event they do - we can find something
Jim Prendergast
55:01
the odds of two bids being the exactly same are pretty low
Jim Prendergast
56:36
it seems to me that a more fleshed out Vickrey and a deviation of that are ripe for public comment
Justine Chew
56:49
It's a question of what is the best option to address the most pressing problem.
Justine Chew
56:57
or problems
Donna Austin, Neustar
58:35
@Jim, can you let me know how you characterise my suggestion?
Jim Prendergast
59:26
@Donna - which suggestion?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:00:04
My proposal: I'm not sure what you mean by--it seems to me that a more fleshed out Vickrey and a deviation of that are ripe for public comment
Justine Chew
01:00:56
Also to be clear between considering Vickrey auction (bids placed at time of application) versus sealed-bid auction (bids placed at time contention set confirmed).
Kurt Pritz
01:02:48
Vickrey is not “bids placed at time of application,” Vickrey is a sealed bid application where the winner pays the second highest price, traditional sealed bid auctions are where the winner pays the highest price bid
Paul McGrady
01:03:20
Respectfully, the ICANN Org comments here are pretty rosy compared to the reality. Getting Spec 13 through was a slog.
Justine Chew
01:05:10
@Kurt, I'm not disagreeing with you on the OUTCOME of the 2 auction types. It was mentioned in a previous call that Vickrey auction calls for bids to be placed at time of application. If that is incorrect, then best we correct that understanding too. Thanks
Jim Prendergast
01:07:26
@Donna - That wasn't tied to your comment. It was more a continuation from the previous call and what Jeff said. As Justine just pointed out above - It seems like there is a true Vickrey model that has significant support and then a version which you put forward which limits/delays the submission of a sealed bid to those parties who are only in a contention set but in a period prior to reveal. I kind of like the only submit sealed bid prior to reveal because as you pointed out on Thursday, it avoids a lot of work for parties who may not be in a contention set – esp brands. As long as its done rapidly and before reveal it avoids collusion so takes some of the regulatory heat off of this.
Jim Prendergast
01:08:10
@Kurt - Vickrey is at time of bid. Otherwise its something else.
Paul McGrady
01:08:41
hahahahaha
Kurt Pritz
01:09:04
"Sealed bid" is at the time of application - whatever application that is. Vickrey is a type of sealed bid where the winner pays the second highest bid
Kurt Pritz
01:10:49
To go on about sealed bid and Vickrey - “at the time of application” means that the “envelops are opened and the winner is announced” and not that there are other evaluations, objections, months and years of processing and other issues that alter the value of the item bid upon
Justine Chew
01:18:18
In which jurisdiction? ;)
Justine Chew
01:19:18
Both?
Paul McGrady
01:19:49
Obviously, I like the IPC/INTA comment.
Justine Chew
01:20:20
If a complainant takes issue with ICANN not enforcing a complaint, can they take it to a PICDRP?
Jim Prendergast
01:21:41
Jeff - if you are calling for any group to object to something on a call then that probably needs to be called out explicitly in the notes
Steve Chan
01:25:59
If I recall, this section was sourced from an email conversation, which is why it seems like a back and forth rather than a series of public comments.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:56
there were conversations at the call, I think
Steve Chan
01:28:23
Hand from Karen Jeff
Steve Chan
01:28:30
Oh, there was!
Karen Lentz
01:28:50
It was on the previous section, we’ll come back to it later
Jim Prendergast
01:29:41
On the DNS Abuse topic - could you as part of AOB - give us further insight into what you mean by that? Had to be the "define that" guy but these days, its kind of important.
Jim Prendergast
01:30:03
hate - not had
Paul McGrady
01:35:38
RE: RySG comment, I think that is why there isn't much chatter here - the parade of horribles promised to occur with vertical integration never really showed up
Jim Prendergast
01:45:40
ok thanks - and I'm more beat down than you - my Jets got walloped...
Julie Bisland
01:46:10
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Jim Prendergast
01:48:00
if there are slides - could we get those ahead of time? reacting on the fly is tough
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:59
bye all