Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Susan Payne
29:17
not really a change but I was reappointed IPC Secretary for another year
Julie Hedlund
29:28
Thanks Susan and noted.
Steve Chan
30:41
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit#heading=h.vhvbz3om92n9
Julie Hedlund
30:43
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Katrin Ohlmer
32:26
Apologies for being late
Anne Aikman-Scalese
35:38
ICANN Board says it does not make policy. Its decision would be subject to RFR and IRP - very messy so it may be better to stick with what we developed earlier.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:13
OK thanks Jeff. I think I got confused about the deletion.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:58
Agree with Steve that there should be a reference in stead to Auction of last resort.
Jim Prendergast
39:19
I agree they are good goals so suggest removing possible description
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:05
Jeff - there was a good draft that was put out by staff for ICANN66. Are we still working off that or this this different language? BTW, I would definitely need to ask IPC for its position on "no private resolution" versus retaining private resolutions. I can do that this week.
Steve Chan
48:01
@Anne, confirmed, this is the same draft unaltered.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:14
Many thanks Steve - very helpful.
Justine Chew
49:13
Alternative 2
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:27
not thwere yet @Jim :-)
Justine Chew
50:27
Third bullet point .... Post reveal day ....
Maxim Alzoba
51:01
hello all, sorry for being late
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:40
I had read it as an option for those who had, yes, 'stayed in/did not withdraw...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:53
But that needs clarification(s)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:12
Welcome @Maxim
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:28
In third bullet point, after "opportunity", you would need to insert "after reveal day" or something to clarify that parties become known.
Steve Chan
54:08
In the paragraph below the bullets, it talks about the seemingly conflicting elements that Jim, and now Justine, is talking about in bullet 3.
Elaine Pruis
54:58
What’s the point of submitting a sealed bid if applicants would resolve privately?
Justine Chew
55:19
Also swap position of the 3rd and 4th bullets in Alternative 2 for better logical flow
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:29
They may not resolve privately and should only have a limited period to resolve. If not resolved in a limited period, it should proceed to the sealed bid winner. I am not seeing the time limit in alternative 2 though. Is it there?
Kathy Kleiman
57:26
but that's the resolution process we were talking about in our past meetings...
Kathy Kleiman
57:29
great
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:45
3rd Alt … sure
Kathy Kleiman
58:12
Thumbs up
Gg Levine (NABP)
58:23
How could private auctions be prevented?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:51
Objections should not be triggered until a winner (or a prvate resolution winner) is identified.
Jim Prendergast
59:52
Definitely note it and work up a solution.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:14
+1 Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:01
Okay thank you.
Susan Payne
01:04:02
correct Jeff, that was my point - and that the SCO timing doesn't fit with these sealed bid processes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:06:27
Just as a side note as CSG rep for Auction Proceeds, private resolution could reduce available grant funds in Auction Proceeds.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:08:51
strongly support 1 public comment period, for the exact same length of time for all
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:09:07
Sounds cleaner with only one comment period.
Justine Chew
01:09:08
Agree that that makes sense @Jeff
Susan Payne
01:09:15
agree it would be impractical to have multiple comments
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:44
hotel, hotels, hoteles
Susan Payne
01:11:49
hands up
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:50
all the same contention set?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:13:41
if new applications are added to an existing contention set, is there any visibility at that point as to who the existing applicants are in the contention set before submitting their bid?
Steve Chan
01:13:46
As far as I understand Alternative 1, the establishment of contention sets, and any changes, are irrelevant since bids are submitted at submission?
Justine Chew
01:14:01
Agree with Susan, to not confuse String Similarity Evaluation with String Confusion Objections
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:14:40
agree with Susan
Justine Chew
01:14:46
+1 Susan
Jim Prendergast
01:15:36
how many of those contention sets were created last round?
Justine Chew
01:15:46
Which is why getting every applicant to submit a bid at the point of application is something to consider, even though it may be cumbersome for many
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:16:10
What if this fact situation should default to sealed bid only?
Elaine Pruis
01:16:14
Why would they not be all announced at the same time
Susan Payne
01:16:19
so we are proposing to treat some applicants differently from others? That does not seem to be in line with the Bylaws
Jim Prendergast
01:16:24
+1 to Justine
Elaine Pruis
01:17:38
Why string similarity evaluation after reveal day?
Elaine Pruis
01:19:26
yes
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:20:01
is string similarity not subject to accountability mechanisms and appeals?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:20:24
would that not “reveal” it in some manner?
Justine Chew
01:20:25
+1 Jamie
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:12
Agree with that suggestion re string similarity evaluation occurring first and before reveal day. bids would have to be in before appeal.
Justine Chew
01:25:02
Sounds good, @Jeff, can we add text to relay your comment on "can indicate that an objection will apply to all applications for same string"?
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:34
New hands...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:32
Objections should not come into full proceedings unless and until there is a winner - it's a huge waste of time and money if it does proceed but private parties need to know what the value of the string may be.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:37
I'm not sure we should be making objection theory in this section...
Alberto Soto
01:26:44
Sorry, I must leave the call. Cheers
Justine Chew
01:27:07
+1 Jeff. Need to avoid inconsistent results
Phil Buckingham
01:27:53
so the sealed bid approach would eliminate ICANN ‘s last resort auction process , right ?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:28:08
i do have some concern about not having to submit the objections on a standard timeline, although i do support not engaging fees or panels until the objection is necessary, based on bidder ordering
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:29:11
“time” may benefit some as they build their case
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:30:39
or could the “intent to file” require some key points that will be included in the objection filing
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:39
and optional...
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:54
intent to object...
Justine Chew
01:32:57
Good point @Anne, do we need consider risk frivolous intent to object?
Justine Chew
01:33:06
*risk of
Alexander Schubert
01:33:33
I can't imagine anybody running away just because there is an "objection intention"...
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:53
In the first round, all objections were due on the same date...
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:07
no
Justine Chew
01:35:48
@Anne, in that situation the objection is against the string, not the applicant?
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:01
the concept of private revolution is interesting :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:15
I don't think communities should have to file an intent to object -- there may or may not be interest in private resolution.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:52
There is always opportunity for private resolution with outside objectors in legal rights and community objections.
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:53
parties can just follow orders, where they are not even aware of the negotiations on the upper level of the holding
christopher wilkinson
01:40:04
@ Anne. I thought that private resolution had been taken off the table, or have I missed something whilst being away?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:04
The nature of the applicant is important. It's not just the existence of the string. It depends on who is operating it and what the purpose of the tld as stated in the application in Question 18 answers and services to be provided in answer to Question 23. There should be an intent to object process prior to determining the order of the queue with not panel convened.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:25
@Christopher - I don't think private resolution was thrown out.
Jim Prendergast
01:46:17
I see nothing that is insurmountable. Just need to work through it
Steve Chan
01:47:01
Hi Jeff, quick comment when you have a moment.
Susan Payne
01:48:42
what about we have sealed bids at the outset, when applicants apply, but we do allow some time for the parties to settle - so we have a kind of combination between 1 and 2? It seems a real loss to try to fix one issue and thereby losing any opportunity for parties to try to agree sharing-type arrangements etc
Phil Buckingham
01:48:54
Jeff , will the sealed bid eliminate ICANN last resort auction . that would be a big plus for me
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:15
agree with Jim and Jeff - details can be worked out and I think it can be worked out with either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. I am saying this because I think IPC could be likely to want to retain free market private resolution. (Not a question of personal preference.)
Poncelet Ileleji
01:50:39
Concur also
Steve Chan
01:50:58
@Jeff, all, to my question just raised, there is a suggested extra goal as number 7
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:35
It would be great if Leadership could think through a next draft based on conversation today. I would like to review this issue with IPC.
Justine Chew
01:51:51
I would put equity ahead of efficiency actually.
Jim Prendergast
01:52:00
Hello.neuman
Phil Buckingham
01:52:41
that a great idea - flowchart or critical path analysis
Steve Chan
01:53:56
Hi Jeff, one last point
Michelle DeSmyter
01:53:57
Next meeting: Thursday, 05 December at 20:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:05
Lots of good progress here today though looking forward to the llist discussion... Bye for now.
Alexander Schubert
01:54:44
Bye everybody .....
Justine Chew
01:54:44
It is useful to note that the WG had looked/considered ramifications of the 2 (or 3) Alternatives and reference back to original goals.
Robin Gross
01:54:45
Agree that we need recommendations for clarity’s sake.
Poncelet Ileleji
01:54:47
Thanks alot Bye all