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

Wed Apr 22 09:10:51 UTC 2020

I agree, 

There should be no forced volunteering for the IDNs. 

What damage to the round and applicants and ICANN could be caused by later processing of those IDNs, who decided to do so with all other applicants? 

⁣Maxim Alzoba

On 22 Apr 2020, 11:58, at 11:58, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>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>  
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.