Comment from Radix Regsitry - Need clarity on auction and payment scheduling

["Shweta Sahjwani" <shweta.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN has not defined any schedule for auctions and payments  in the
proposal.

 From a rational standpoint, the schedule that is eventually announced and
approved should ensure the following:

1)      Auctions should not be scheduled simultaneously as stated in the
Applicant Guidebook: "To the extent possible, auctions to resolve multiple
string contention situations will be conducted simultaneously." 

a.       If this is implemented, auctions would not occur until Initial
Evaluation results for the very last batch of applications (assumedly 1800
to 1923 will have at least one contention set application in it) is
published.

b.      And then contention set applicants would have to wait until every
other applicant in every other contention set is prepared for the auction. 

Clearly, it would not make sense to hold up 2 willing applicants with Draw
Numbers 20 and 40 in contention for this long.

2)      Auctions should be scheduled based on the Draw Numbers selected by
the applicants in a contention set. For example, if Draw Numbers 1500 and
1600 are in contention, it would not make much sense to force auction
between them in July 2012, when the earliest they stand to be delegated
their string is 1 to 1.5 years later (assuming 1000 TLDs per year delegation
limit). Ideally the auction should be scheduled closest to the time of the
potential pre-delegation testing appointment for the lowest Draw Number from
the Contention Set.

3)      With respect to payments, the Applicant Guidebook stipulates that
the winning bidder must pay the winning amount within 20 business days from
the auction. For example, if Draw Number 1900 wins an Auction in July 2013,
he would need to pay up the winning amount within 20 business days, and then
stand to be delegated the TLD over 60 weeks later (assuming 1400 unique
strings, and 1000 TLDs per year delegation limit). Obviously it does not
benefit anyone to pay the winning amount one year before delegation, and
lose interest on the amount in the interim. Therefore the payment schedule
should be dependent upon delegation time, rather than on auction time.

However, as per our understanding of things as they stand currently, there
exists a possibility of a huge time gap between: (1) Auction and Delegation
and (2) Payment and Delegation. Which is not favorable to anyone involved in
the process.

We would appreciate some clarity on whether our understanding is correct.
And we look forward to more clarity on this subject as a whole.

 

Warm regards, 

 

Shweta Sahjwani

Strategic Partner Manager

Radix Regsitry, The Directi Group
Description: Description: Directi-250x86
Tel : +91 (22) 3079 7500 Extn: 8522
Fax : +91 (22) 3079 7508

Skype: shwetasahjwani