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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Wed Apr 22 08:57:20 UTC 2020


Dear Jeff,

 

If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested
priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be
processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make
sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application
that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only
after those who requested priority have been processed.

A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the
applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are
there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize
IDN applications?

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the
Prioritization of IDN applications

 

Anne,

 

You description is almost right with a big exception.  

 

1.	In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed
will be IDNs.  But they are not the first 125 applications that are
received.  It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of
the pool of all IDN applications).  The next 375 applications processed are
not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375
applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and
Non-IDN).

 

2.	The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all
remaining IDN applications.  The next 450 applications are selected at
random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN
applications).

 

3.	In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it
doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received.

 

With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little
support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that
in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members.  That
is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is
not an element of the proposal.

 

Hope that helps.

 

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 <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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. 

  _____  

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>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200422/7c0da3a2/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/20200422/7c0da3a2/image001-0001.jpg>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list