[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications

Tue Apr 21 16:38:54 UTC 2020

Hi Anne,

     375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed
next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in
which case, you are done with idn priority.

I understand it very different:

In the first 500 we have 125 reserved spots for IDNs that elected priority
(if there are 125 IDNs that do so). If MORE than 125 IDNs elected priority
they may take up spots in the remaining 375 slots (if the “draw mechanism”
puts them there). Any IDN that has not elected priority will only be
processed AFTER all priority applications are processed. 

The reason why we want to grant IDN’s the opportunity to request priority is
that we think we should allow them to “startup” fast. If they have no desire
to do so: I fail to see the motivation to process them with priority? So if
we have only 100 IDNs and only 10 elect priority: then only 10 are in the
first 500 batch, and the other 490 slots go to non-IDN applicants. We have
to leave it to the applicant whether they want a speedy evaluation or not.
The 90 IDN applicants who would have NOT elected priority would be processed
with all other non-priority applicants. It would be the wish of the
applicant to do so. Call it “freedom of slow startup”.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 6:58 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the
Prioritization of IDN applications

Thanks Jeff.  The net effect seems to boil down to the following:

First batch of 500:  The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number)
requesting priority processing get processed first.  375 “mixed” (non-idn
and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger
number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done
with idn priority.

Second and subsequent batches of 500:  If any idn applications requesting
priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed
first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get
processed in each batch.  If the remainder of idn applications requesting
priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500  is less than 50, then
the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of
the batch is filled with “mixed” applications.

Is the above a correct description?

Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to
grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications?  Do
we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications
other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed
on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications?  (Once
again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may
end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board.  I don’t think anyone on the
Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice
conflict.  They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and
work it out means delay.

Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization
of IDN applications

[EXTERNAL]

  _____  

All,

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the
processing of applications.  I have assembled the comments and offer this as
proposed text for the draft final report.   I first lay out what the
existing section states followed by the proposed new language:

EXISTING LANGUAGE

No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was
made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there
was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings
was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a
number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working
Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications
should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. 

PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE

Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx):  If the volume of applications
received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in
batches of 500.*

*In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided
that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent
batch was to be only 400 applications.  For ease, the Working Group has
modified this to an even 500 applications per batch.  (See Applicant
Guidebook, page I-9).

Recommendation (Rationale xx):  The Working Group notes that in the 2012
round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN
strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to
prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review.  For Subsequent
rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used
with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name
applications:

a)      First Batch of 500

a.       If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect
to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications
processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings
that elect to participate in the prioritization draw.  The remaining 75% of
applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN
applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw.   

b.      If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect
to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall
be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.

b)      Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the
Prioritization Draw

a.       For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of
applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN
applications.  

b.      The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random
out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.

c)       Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the
Prioritization Draw

a.       When all of the applications that have elected to participate in
the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the
remaining applications is batches of 500 applications.

b.      The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN
applications until there are no more IDN applications.  

c.       The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at
random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.

 Example:  Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200
applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings.
1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to
participate in the prioritization draw.  The remaining 200 IDN string and
800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw.
ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the
following manner:

Batch 1:

125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw)
shall be processed first.  The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be
combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications,
375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch.

Batch 2:

Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining
that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw.  In the second
batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected
at random.  The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch
shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN
applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications.

Batch 3:

Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications
that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw.  In the third
batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected
at random.  The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch
shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN
applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications.

Batch 4

Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications
for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization
draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN
applications.  Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be
processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings.

Batch 5: 

There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not
to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process
in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings.  The remaining 450 applications process
shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN
applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications.

Batch 6:

Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and
470 of them are for non-IDN strings.  In this case only 7.5% of the last
batch is comprised of IDN applications.  Therefore all of the remaining IDN
applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470
non-IDN strings.

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

  _____  

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 www.comlaude.com <https://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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200421/2ed110c4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2734 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200421/2ed110c4/image001-0001.jpg>