[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 1 May 2020, at 19:12, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Regarding the attached PDF “Auction discussion points”:
> 
> In Option 2 we have two reveals: one is revealing only the strings, the second the applicants as well. Prior to the reveal of applicants we establish the contention sets – and require contention set members to place an “auction of last resort” sealed bid.
> 
> My question is: How are the “contention sets” being established?
> ·         Like in the 2012 round?
> ·         Or “automatically”: only identical strings?
> 
> If we strive to establish contention sets like in 2012 – we run into a big problem: that process took many years. Think “string similarity objection”.
> 

Contention sets indeed might require more evaluations (Geo, CPE) and objection processing to be done, so I suggest making it clear to bidders where some other member in the contention set has self-identified as Geo or Community. We would still require them to bid, and use that bid if no other criteria ends up settling the contention set.

But I suggest bidding to only occur after ICANN's own string similarity analysis, so cases like unicom/unicorn would already appear in the strings reveal as in contention, while the final size and shape of the contention sets might be changed later down the road by string confusion objections. Since the bidders (and everyone) would know the full list of strings, they can assess the risk of a string confusion objection to add more applications to fight with the winning bid.

This is also a reason to limit disclosure of the bid amounts until after contention sets are finalised and new bids are requested from the applicants initially not in contention for the contention sets formed after the first reveal. Such amounts need to be disclosed at some point, and any limit of filing appeals, RfRs etc. should only start counting after disclosing of the winning bids.

Linking to another topic, do we also want for strings reveal day to also feature the results of name collision risk assessments ? It might be useful for bidders to know whether they are going for a smooth path to delegation or to a convoluted mitigation framework design / evaluation path.


Rubens






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200501/561c117a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200501/561c117a/signature-0001.asc>