[SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing

trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com
Tue Feb 20 13:07:32 UTC 2024 

Alex,

I think we agree that no “draw” is needed and just randomized assignment of priority for those who elect to be prioritized through the applicant portal.  But from there your way again seems to be overcomplicated.  The simplest method would be for ICANN to just use a randomizer but I know people distrust ICANN so I suggest a reputable third party to do the randomization and then the results can be announced.  I agree no slot trading.

Marc H. Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
T +1 312.456.1020
M +1 773.677.3305
trac at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>

[Greenberg Traurig Logo]
[cid:image002.png at 01DA63CB.78396830]

From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of alexander at schubert.berlin
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:53 AM
To: subpro-irt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing

Hi,

Why so complicated:

Why a “draw”? The only reason we had a draw last time around was that we did not know BEFORE we started the round that we need application queuing. This time we know it. Why not baking random queuing for those that indicate they need it into the process?

A random number is being assigned to the application (whatever, a 4096 digit long number for example). Once all applications are logged in the only thing we have then to “draw” would be a “sequence start number”, e.g. “1037”: We thereby have additionally randomized the outcome. We use the first e.g. 32 numbers starting at the sequence start number (e.g. 1037) – and the result will be the application priority number. It’s double randomized as a randomized number has been assigned at application submission AND the sequence start position has been randomly drawn after all applications are logged in. No way on earth to game this method. Those who do not demand prioritized processing still get a number assigned, which determines their processing order, too.

No lottery needed.

Additional idea:
Applicants may indicate at application submission that they wish priority processing. They can’t do that afterwards, but they can withdraw the priority request afterwards at any given time. Even after having been placed into the priority queue - but before the priority processing of their application has started.

And:
I hope we do not allow any priority slot swapping or trading.

Danke,

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Alexander Schubert
___________________________________
Alexander Schubert
LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34R8Gn0o5$>
U.S. +1(202)684-6806
Germany +49(030)8643-7863








From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 2:43 AM
To: subpro-irt at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing



Em 19 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 16:33, trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> escreveu:

Rubens,

I am not sure what CA law requires written tickets or a physical draw to set the order for application review.  To the extent that you require consideration (i.e., payment) to get a benefit where such is determined by chance you create the risk of an illegal lottery. But if no consideration/payment  is required that risk goes away and it is unlikely that the process would be deemed a sweepstakes or promotion requiring registration under any state or country law as it is not open to the public or consumers but rather is a process for determining priority to a closed group of companies that applied for TLDs.

The CA website I mentioned has the legal references… but indeed your point indicates yet another reason to not have tickets.


Re the need for draw tickets I think that is a bad and confusing phrase. But there seems to be value letting applicants choose whether they care about prioritization or not, and if they do, randomly selecting which order their application is reviewed.  If others agree then I would propose letting the applicant elect of they want to be prioritized and then if they do having a third party randomly assign order of review.

Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing?

In this point, yes. I’m not advocating for forcing applicants into the prioritization contest. ICANN should repeat what happened in the 2012 draw where applicants that prefer to not have prioritization were assigned numbers after the ones wanting prioritization. But in 2012, and I believe we should do in 2026 too, got and should get a number from the draw. All applications having a number allow for simpler processing thru the pipeline.



Rubens




Best regards,

Marc H. Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
T +1 312.456.1020
M +1 773.677.3305
trac at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>

<image001.png>
<image002.png>

From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 11:43 AM
To: subpro-irt at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing


Marc,

The reasons for the physical draw are rooted in California law; what you are suggesting would work in Nevada, I’m told. What I challenged was the need for the draw tickets now that this round will have the draw as it’s prioritization mechanism of choice since day 1.



Rubens



Em 19 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 14:35, <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>> <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>> escreveu:

I agree.  This is overly complicated and unnecessary.  Why use paper tickets and have them be purchased?  Is this 1980?  Why not just have the applicant elect electronically through the applicant portal whether or not they wat to participate in the prioritization draw.  Only certain authorized applicant representative have access to the portal so this should be both efficient and secure.  I also don’t think we need a live draw and can just use some recognized third party provider to conduct the draw and then announce the results.

Furthermore, and further to what Rubens posted below, purchasing tickets could be deemed an illegal lottery under the laws of various US states and other countries.  Generally, the elements of an illegal lottery are: chance, prize, and consideration, all of which would be present here.

So, in sum I think:

  1.  No tickets
  2.  Applicants elect to participate in the prioritization draw through the applicant portal by a certain date
  3.  Draw conducted by recognized provider and doesn’t have to be live

Best regards,

Marc H. Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
T +1 312.456.1020
M +1 773.677.3305
trac at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>

<image001.png>
<image002.png>

From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:28 AM
To: subpro-irt at icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing

*EXTERNAL TO GT*

Complicating things shouldn't be an implementation goal. From https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/url?q=https:**Aoag.ca.gov*charities*raffles&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1708359932350488&usg=AOvVaw3x9QF84Jb3OHI95hhYPblB__;Ly8vLw!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34econGXK$>:
"Registration is not required if all tickets for a drawing are free, solicitations of voluntary donations to the organization are in no way connected to distribution of tickets, and this is made clear to all participants. If a "donation" is required in return for a ticket, registration is required."

So by selling tickets instead of giving them away, org is complicating itself and applicants unnecessarily.






Rubens



Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 11:22, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> escreveu:


Peter,

Using a separate ticket drawing was used in 2012 only because AGB foresaw Digital Archery. Now that the application will include priority ticket from the start, there is no sane reason to do it like this.

I suggested an alternative in the Google Doc.


Rubens




Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 07:38, Peter Eakin <peter.eakin at icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin at icann.org>> escreveu:

Dear IRT Members,

We are pleased to share a link to proposed AGB language on the subject of ‘Application Queuing’ for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, based on the Board-adopted recommendations included in Topic 19 of the Final Report<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf*page=86__;Iw!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34VnhyIDQ$>: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-yCw/edit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-yCw/edit__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34aI3irUU$>

A PDF version of this document and an agenda for Tuesday’s call is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34U4RPcou$>

If you have any questions or concerns, or experience difficulties accessing the above links, please let us know in advance of the meeting.

Thanks and best wishes,

Peter

Peter Eakin (Mr)
Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Tel: + 32 493 547 913
Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium


_______________________________________________
SubPro-IRT mailing list
SubPro-IRT at icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34cSYY-eZ$>

_______________________________________________
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34R5A-1LJ$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!C_2IEl3NhRtkW-FcE0ClfUI23Wxn_pYyJ1zOVT2g5uqK49XZrNqFqWxFFlBjn2EYnw7WheFKO_3PzN9gOna34bRwzG0Y$>). 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.


________________________________
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240220/5c1b74df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12852 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240220/5c1b74df/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6018 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240220/5c1b74df/image002-0001.png>

More information about the SubPro-IRT mailing list