I’ve been reading throught the RfP and some other discussions on the ens forums. So far, my understanding is that the short name registration is a two step process:
- A pre-auction phase that allows to register a name prior to the auction mechanism so that entities with valid claims to a domain actually get it.
- The auction to sell off all remaining domains.
From the forum I understand that there is still some discussion on how the pre-auction phase will be handled. It remains out of scope for this RfP. The RfP’s scope is the actual auction phase. Is that the correct understanding?
Another question is: What are your learnings from the long name auction process that you want to avoid by having the auction re-implemented? Is it mainly the ease of use or are there more reasons to it?
And to expand a bit on the RfP itself, could you answer these questions:
- The RfP doesn’t specify a particular auction format; it mentions the english auction and the Vickrey auction. Both of them have different advantages and disadvantages. Are you considering both or is there a strong preference for a particular format?
- The RfP mentions auto-reveal for a potential Sealed bid auction. Is that a necessary feature or is it acceptable to put the burden on the user to reveal the bid and thereby reduce the complexity of the smart contract?
- Our current understanding is that we will implement another controller for the permanent registrar. This controller will handle the auction mechanism for the initial auction of the short domains. After the auction process has ended, renewal of short domains will be handled by yet another controller. What is the issuance contract’s role in this?
- What is the current timeline? The RfP sets the deadline for proposals to 2019–06–03, the intended launch date is the at the latest 2019–08–04. This medium post extends the deadline for proposals to 2019–06–21. Does that have consequences on the intended launch date, too?