[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Apr 14 17:07:00 UTC 2020 

Jeff, I support your original proposal subject to 
notes below). The 120 rule seems to be just too 
small a detail and I am not sure it can be justified.

I agree that priority should be explicitly 
requested (with the warned implication that if 
delegated early, they must be prepared to launch).

I presume that all decisions on who is in a round 
or which IDNs are selected is a random selection.

Alan

At 2020-04-13 10:33 PM, Jeff Neuman wrote:

>Thanks Anne.  The Applicant Guidebook did talk 
>about using batches of 500 if there are more 
>than 500 applications.  I will dig that up ad 
>then create an affirmation for that.  So, it 
>looks like we may have a possible workable solution.
>
>Would love to hear more feedback on the 
>proposal.  Tomorrow, I will re-write the 
>proposal based on the feedback and create an example.
>
>Jeff Neuman
>Senior Vice President
>Com Laude | Valideus
>D: +1.703.635.7514
>E: <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
>From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 4:51 PM
>To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 
>alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>Hi Jeff,
>Thanks – assuming the 2012 round had 120 idn applicants, I would say:
>1. If there are 120 idn applicants (or fewer) 
>who check the box that they want priority, 
>process those first.  Those who don’t request 
>priority get thrown into the remaining random 
>batches and treated the same as all other applications.
>.
>2. If more than 120 idn applicants want 
>priority, I would go with your recommended 
>system, but I would say that we should be 
>processing no fewer than 50 idn applications per 
>batch if that many have applied for priority processing.
>
>It might help if we were to come up with a 
>“batch size” and 
>“randomization”  recommendation in 
>collaboration with ICANN GDD.  Then we would 
>have more of a basis for recommending something
>Anne
>
>From: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:07 PM
>To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
><<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>; 
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin; 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>[EXTERNAL]
>
>Yes, I am making an assumption because we are 
>creating a process that needs to not only apply 
>to the next round, but needs to be 
>repeatable.  Without knowing a specific volume 
>in advance, I am making a proposal based on a formula.
>
>So, If I understand your modification, it would be:
>
>    * If there are <120 IDN applications, those 
> applicants that want priority will be processed prior to non-IDN applications.
>    * If there are >120 IDN applications, 120 of 
> the IDN applications will be processed before 
> any non-IDN applications.  The remainder of the 
> IDN applications shall be processed in the following manner:
>        * In the first batch of 500, which 
> includes the 120 initially reviewed IDN 
> applications, the remaining 380 applications 
> shall be randomized including all IDN and non-IDN applications.
>        * The other batches shall work according to the example below.
>
>Example
>In a batch of 500, priority #1-120 must be IDNs; 
>121-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN 
>applications.  In other words if a particular 
>IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would 
>have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500.
>
>In the next batch of 500 (Applications 
>#501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there 
>are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN
>
>In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 
>15000), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are 
>left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN
..etc
>
>Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, 
>there would be a guarantee of evaluating at 
>least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN 
>applications showing up in the randomized 
>drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots.
>
>I hope this works as a reasonable compromise.
>
>
>
>Jeff Neuman
>Senior Vice President
>Com Laude | Valideus
>D: +1.703.635.7514
>E: <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
>From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:53 PM
>To: Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin; 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY 
>in prrocessing idn applications.  The assumption 
>appears to be that there are TONS of IDN 
>applications.  NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT.
>
>I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF 
>THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST 
>TIME, why not let them move forward?  If there 
>are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then 
>we could RATION the processing of idn 
>applications – not sure that 10% is rright and 
>would welcome others views on this.
>
>No silos here – just a questioon re the 
>underlying assumption of extreme DELAY.
>Anne
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM
>To: 
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin; 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>[EXTERNAL]
>
>All,
>
>Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did 
>not want priority could opt out of prioritization.  So that will be baked in.
>
>To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed 
>on whether there should be prioritization.  Many 
>commenters opposed ANY priority.  Yes, some proposed them having priority.
>
>So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you 
>to critique the proposal with the following rules:
>
>    * ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and
>    * ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE 
> PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY.
>
>Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to 
>see what we can live with and not stick to our silos.
>
>Thanks in advance for trying again.
>
>Jeff Neuman
>Senior Vice President
>Com Laude | Valideus
>D: +1.703.635.7514
>E: <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM
>To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>Hi,
>
>I think we have to bake the 
>priority-request-issue already into the application:
>
>In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we 
>proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs.
>
>Any application that has a “sunrise period” 
>provision in their application and is seeking 
>prioritization should be forced to execute such 
>sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If 
>you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise.
>
>Hence we should require applicants to indicate 
>already in their application whether they 
>request a potentially available prioritization. 
>If you don’t yet know how or when you start 
>up: don’t ask for prioritization.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alexander
>
>
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg 
>[<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] 
>On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM
>To: Rubens Kuhl <<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>rubensk at nic.br>
>Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of 
>IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
>
>Why don't we add  (in some ICANN style legal language)
>
>"Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use 
>the results of such prioritization, and in this case
>the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches".
>
>P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of 
>the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too.
>
>Sincerely Yours,
>
>Maxim Alzoba
>Special projects manager,
>International Relations Department,
>FAITID
>
>Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
>
>
>
>On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl 
><<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
>
>What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a 
>first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance.
>
>While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN 
>applicant wants it, although evaluation priority 
>address just one of the many issues faced by 
>IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise 
>applications that want exactly the opposite.
>
>
>Rubens
>
>
>On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
>All,
>
>In an effort to offer a compromise between those 
>that favor the prioritization of all IDN 
>applications and those that do not favor the 
>prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution.
>
>Background
>The prioritization of IDN applications was a 
>decision made by ICANN org well after all 
>applications were submitted in 2012 and made a 
>lot of sense to the community for the following 
>reasons.  (1) There were only approximate 115 
>IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the 
>applications); (2) it was the first round to 
>ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) 
>part of the rationale for the first expansion 
>was for innovation and expansion of the name 
>space to the global community and (4) it was a 
>good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet.
>
>Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still 
>believe that despite not being the first round, 
>reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of 
>pursuing.  Many who are not in favor of 
>prioritization are afraid that the next round 
>could see thousands of new applications 
>including thousands of IDNs.  To prioritize all 
>IDNs up front could take months or even years 
>(in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed.
>
>Proposal – Proportional Prioritization>
>What is we stated that the first 10% of each 
>batch of applications must consist of IDN 
>applications until there are no more IDN 
>applications.  Therefore, if ICANN wants to 
>create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 
>of each application batch processed must be 
>IDNs.  The remaining 450 would be random (of 
>both IDN and Non-IDN applications).
>
>Example
>In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 
>51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN 
>applications.  In other words if a particular 
>IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would 
>have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500.
>
>In the next batch of 500 (Applications 
>#501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there 
>are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN
>
>In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 
>1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are 
>left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN
..etc
>
>Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, 
>there would be a guarantee of evaluating at 
>least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN 
>applications showing up in the randomized 
>drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots.
>
>I hope this works as a reasonable compromise.
>
>
>Jeff Neuman
>Senior Vice President
>
>Com Laude | Valideus
>1751 Pinnacle Drive
>Suite 600, McLean
>VA 22102, USA
>
>M: +1.202.549.5079
>D: +1.703.635.7514
>E: <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
><http://www.comlaude.com/>www.comlaude.com
>
><image003.jpg>
>
>
>The contents of this email and any attachments 
>are confidential to the intended recipient. They 
>may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any 
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. 
>If you have received this message in error, 
>please return it to the sender (deleting the 
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) 
>and immediately and permanently delete it. 
>Please note that the Com Laude Group does not 
>accept any responsibility for viruses and it is 
>your responsibility to scan or otherwise check 
>this email and any attachments. The Com Laude 
>Group does not accept liability for statements 
>which are clearly the sender's own and not made 
>on behalf of the group or one of its member 
>entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ 
>Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in 
>England and Wales with company number 5047655 
>and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus 
>Limited, a company registered in England and 
>Wales with company number 06181291 and 
>registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, 
>a company registered in Scotland with company 
>number SC197176, having its registered office at 
>33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF 
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and 
>Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle 
>Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com 
>Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered 
>in Japan having its registered office at Suite 
>319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, 
>Japan. For further information see 
><https://comlaude.com/>www.comlaude.com_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 
>You can visit the Mailman link above to change 
>your membership status or configuration, 
>including unsubscribing, setting digest-style 
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 
>You can visit the Mailman link above to change 
>your membership status or configuration, 
>including unsubscribing, setting digest-style 
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
>The contents of this email and any attachments 
>are confidential to the intended recipient. They 
>may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any 
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. 
>If you have received this message in error, 
>please return it to the sender (deleting the 
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) 
>and immediately and permanently delete it. 
>Please note that the Com Laude Group does not 
>accept any responsibility for viruses and it is 
>your responsibility to scan or otherwise check 
>this email and any attachments. The Com Laude 
>Group does not accept liability for statements 
>which are clearly the sender's own and not made 
>on behalf of the group or one of its member 
>entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ 
>Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in 
>England and Wales with company number 5047655 
>and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus 
>Limited, a company registered in England and 
>Wales with company number 06181291 and 
>registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, 
>a company registered in Scotland with company 
>number SC197176, having its registered office at 
>33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF 
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and 
>Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle 
>Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com 
>Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered 
>in Japan having its registered office at Suite 
>319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, 
>Japan. For further information see <https://comlaude.com>www.comlaude.com
>
>
>
>This message and any attachments are intended 
>only for the use of the individual or entity to 
>which they are addressed. If the reader of this 
>message or an attachment is not the intended 
>recipient or the employee or agent responsible 
>for delivering the message or attachment to the 
>intended recipient you are hereby notified that 
>any dissemination, distribution or copying of 
>this message or any attachment is strictly 
>prohibited. If you have received this 
>communication in error, please notify us 
>immediately by replying to the sender. The 
>information transmitted in this message and any 
>attachments may be privileged, is intended only 
>for the personal and confidential use of the 
>intended recipients, and is covered by the 
>Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>The contents of this email and any attachments 
>are confidential to the intended recipient. They 
>may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any 
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. 
>If you have received this message in error, 
>please return it to the sender (deleting the 
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) 
>and immediately and permanently delete it. 
>Please note that the Com Laude Group does not 
>accept any responsibility for viruses and it is 
>your responsibility to scan or otherwise check 
>this email and any attachments. The Com Laude 
>Group does not accept liability for statements 
>which are clearly the sender's own and not made 
>on behalf of the group or one of its member 
>entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ 
>Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in 
>England and Wales with company number 5047655 
>and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus 
>Limited, a company registered in England and 
>Wales with company number 06181291 and 
>registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, 
>a company registered in Scotland with company 
>number SC197176, having its registered office at 
>33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF 
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and 
>Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle 
>Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com 
>Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered 
>in Japan having its registered office at Suite 
>319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, 
>Japan. For further information see <https://comlaude.com>www.comlaude.com
>
>
>----------
>
>This message and any attachments are intended 
>only for the use of the individual or entity to 
>which they are addressed. If the reader of this 
>message or an attachment is not the intended 
>recipient or the employee or agent responsible 
>for delivering the message or attachment to the 
>intended recipient you are hereby notified that 
>any dissemination, distribution or copying of 
>this message or any attachment is strictly 
>prohibited. If you have received this 
>communication in error, please notify us 
>immediately by replying to the sender. The 
>information transmitted in this message and any 
>attachments may be privileged, is intended only 
>for the personal and confidential use of the 
>intended recipients, and is covered by the 
>Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>----------
>The contents of this email and any attachments 
>are confidential to the intended recipient. They 
>may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any 
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. 
>If you have received this message in error, 
>please return it to the sender (deleting the 
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) 
>and immediately and permanently delete it. 
>Please note that the Com Laude Group does not 
>accept any responsibility for viruses and it is 
>your responsibility to scan or otherwise check 
>this email and any attachments. The Com Laude 
>Group does not accept liability for statements 
>which are clearly the sender's own and not made 
>on behalf of the group or one of its member 
>entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ 
>Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in 
>England and Wales with company number 5047655 
>and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus 
>Limited, a company registered in England and 
>Wales with company number 06181291 and 
>registered office at 28-30 Little Russell 
>Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, 
>a company registered in Scotland with company 
>number SC197176, having its registered office at 
>33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF 
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and 
>Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle 
>Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com 
>Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered 
>in Japan having its registered office at Suite 
>319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, 
>Japan. For further information see <https://comlaude.com>www.comlaude.com
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the 
>website Terms of Service 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can 
>visit the Mailman link above to change your 
>membership status or configuration, including 
>unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or 
>disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200414/72c1a889/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list