not really a change but I was reappointed IPC Secretary for another year

Thanks Susan and noted.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit#heading=h.vhvbz3om92n9

Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

Apologies for being late

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.

OK thanks Jeff. I think I got confused about the deletion.

Agree with Steve that there should be a reference in stead to Auction of last resort.

I agree they are good goals so suggest removing possible description

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.

@Anne, confirmed, this is the same draft unaltered.

Many thanks Steve - very helpful.

Alternative 2

not thwere yet @Jim :-)

Third bullet point .... Post reveal day ....

hello all, sorry for being late

I had read it as an option for those who had, yes, 'stayed in/did not withdraw...

But that needs clarification(s)

Welcome @Maxim

In third bullet point, after "opportunity", you would need to insert "after reveal day" or something to clarify that parties become known.

In the paragraph below the bullets, it talks about the seemingly conflicting elements that Jim, and now Justine, is talking about in bullet 3.

What’s the point of submitting a sealed bid if applicants would resolve privately?

Also swap position of the 3rd and 4th bullets in Alternative 2 for better logical flow

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?

but that's the resolution process we were talking about in our past meetings...

great

3rd Alt … sure

Thumbs up

How could private auctions be prevented?

Objections should not be triggered until a winner (or a prvate resolution winner) is identified.

Definitely note it and work up a solution.

+1 Anne

Okay thank you.

correct Jeff, that was my point - and that the SCO timing doesn't fit with these sealed bid processes

Just as a side note as CSG rep for Auction Proceeds, private resolution could reduce available grant funds in Auction Proceeds.

strongly support 1 public comment period, for the exact same length of time for all

Sounds cleaner with only one comment period.

Agree that that makes sense @Jeff

agree it would be impractical to have multiple comments

hotel, hotels, hoteles

hands up

all the same contention set?

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?

As far as I understand Alternative 1, the establishment of contention sets, and any changes, are irrelevant since bids are submitted at submission?

Agree with Susan, to not confuse String Similarity Evaluation with String Confusion Objections

agree with Susan

+1 Susan

how many of those contention sets were created last round?

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

What if this fact situation should default to sealed bid only?

Why would they not be all announced at the same time

so we are proposing to treat some applicants differently from others? That does not seem to be in line with the Bylaws

+1 to Justine

Why string similarity evaluation after reveal day?

yes

is string similarity not subject to accountability mechanisms and appeals?

would that not “reveal” it in some manner?

+1 Jamie

Agree with that suggestion re string similarity evaluation occurring first and before reveal day. bids would have to be in before appeal.

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"?

New hands...

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.

I'm not sure we should be making objection theory in this section...

Sorry, I must leave the call. Cheers

+1 Jeff. Need to avoid inconsistent results

so the sealed bid approach would eliminate ICANN ‘s last resort auction process , right ?

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

“time” may benefit some as they build their case

or could the “intent to file” require some key points that will be included in the objection filing

and optional...

intent to object...

Good point @Anne, do we need consider risk frivolous intent to object?

*risk of

I can't imagine anybody running away just because there is an "objection intention"...

In the first round, all objections were due on the same date...

no

@Anne, in that situation the objection is against the string, not the applicant?

the concept of private revolution is interesting :)

I don't think communities should have to file an intent to object -- there may or may not be interest in private resolution.

There is always opportunity for private resolution with outside objectors in legal rights and community objections.

parties can just follow orders, where they are not even aware of the negotiations on the upper level of the holding

@ Anne. I thought that private resolution had been taken off the table, or have I missed something whilst being away?

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.

@Christopher - I don't think private resolution was thrown out.

I see nothing that is insurmountable. Just need to work through it

Hi Jeff, quick comment when you have a moment.

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

Jeff , will the sealed bid eliminate ICANN last resort auction . that would be a big plus for me

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.)

Concur also

@Jeff, all, to my question just raised, there is a suggested extra goal as number 7

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.

I would put equity ahead of efficiency actually.

Hello.neuman

that a great idea - flowchart or critical path analysis

Hi Jeff, one last point

Next meeting: Thursday, 05 December at 20:00 UTC

Lots of good progress here today though looking forward to the llist discussion... Bye for now.

Bye everybody .....

It is useful to note that the WG had looked/considered ramifications of the 2 (or 3) Alternatives and reference back to original goals.

Agree that we need recommendations for clarity’s sake.

Thanks alot Bye all