[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Martin Sutton
martin at brandregistrygroup.org
Wed Apr 22 13:23:50 UTC 2020
I also agree, if we do proceed with the recommendation the IDN prioritisation should be limited to IDN applicants that participate in the prioritisation draw. Otherwise what will be the incentive for IDN applicants to participate in the draw if they think they could simply rely/gamble on a priority pass for free?
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
Brand Registry Group
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
On 22 Apr 2020, at 10:10, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.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
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<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto: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>
<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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>
<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> <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<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
<http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com<http://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<http://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<http://www.comlaude.com> <https://comlaude.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20200422/62e48885/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list