Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
ICANN66 schedule: https://66.schedule.icann.org/
@Jeff, correct regarding Board role
How did iii get in there in the first place?
was it implementation from 2012?
I have the same thought as Jim. (iii) should be subject to recommendations regarding the new appeals mechanism. Perhaps we can say so?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
Agree with Jeff that if it remains there is a presumption that the Board may engage in a final decision, when in reality they rubber stamped every decision that came to them.
Qualify (iii) subject to recommendations regarding the new appeals mechanism.
hello all, sorry for being bit late
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
@Jeff .. Did you mean limit the number of auctions, or applications?
that's much different than limiting applications
then there will be a lot of legal entities, which are going to merger after the RA execution
I do not see the way to prevent that
SOme of that was discussed with the new ideas for types of approaches to the way the Auctions ran last round, with the closed bids etc., that were discussed
the Mechanisms of last resort options might be critical here
all sides invite best fighters, and the last one e standing prevails :)
will have to drop. at the top of the hour, DNS abuse webinar
call has been shortened to allow for that
QUESTION: Did we look at whether a qualified Applicant Support application should simply WIN a string contention set? QUESTION
We will be talking about that under private resolution mechanism
thats where putting bids in at application would help solve for that
that was directed to Alan
My comment was directed to Alan also :)
@Anne, it will lead to applications to be applied from the underserved regions on sole purpose of winning using this golden key
though rich communities managed to go through
I think if sealed bids were to be placed only when contention set is established then the identity of applicants should not be revealed before sealed bids are put in.
bidding against yourself though unless someone bids at 250k and then you lose
There is a balance to be considered -- having the application fee amount kept reasonably high is one way of discouraging affiliated party applying for same string.
we haven't discussed that
@Anne, unless applicants which prevail in ASP gets priority like those who win CPE, then ASP qualifiers will still need to participate in auctions if they fall in a contention set. So a multiplier is intended to help such applicants level the playing field against richer applicants.
Time check - 10 minutes until the top of the hour
@Jeff, hand up after the multiplier discussion
does anyone here have any experience with multipliers in other fora? - that experience might be instructive.
we only had Monte respond, correct?
If I recall Monte did like Vickery but as you said, didn't have a solution. May have to look outside the ICANN world. Ill see what the interwebs could come up with.
@Jeff, now that you’re turning back to Vickrey, reminder that my hand is “up”
I think we need a public comment on the timing
I think we need to think/talk through the timing of bids some more. There are some things that bids at application solve that we haven't touched on
since the public hasn’t had an opportunity to consider or discuss
Identities of parties participating in auctions should not be revealed before sealed bids are put in UNLESS it is necessary to establish which applicants can enjoy a multiplier privilege.
Seems a lot more to consider and explore in this topic... More on Thursdays call, Thanks everyone Bye for now...
Thanks, bye bye!