June 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Pointers for Prelim Issue Report on IGO domain name protections
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

The call for comments is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… and the Preliminary Issue Report is at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…. Alan

1 0

Fwd: informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

>From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:10:59 +0200 >Subject: [council] informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions >To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Councillors, >this is a follow-up to the invitation that I sent to the list earlier. > >Please feel free to share the document with your respective groups. > >Thomas > >On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened >to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of >Batching and Digital Archery. > >The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to >present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow >for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were >presented and commented on. > >With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more >ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and >try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent >the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. > >The main areas of discussion were > >- Application Evaluation Batching and >- Delegation Batching. > >However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of >the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also >discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a >superior solution to the current approach. > >The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a >sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than >guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with >the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the >question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of >interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the >delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal >meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does >not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than >the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the >year i.e is a rate per year. > >For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and >little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single >batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz >emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not >easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, >ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially >identical information in applications using the same Registry >Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I >am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only >the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. >the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to >concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of >those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should >be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I >understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted >which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. > >There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of >initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether >they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A >proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications >as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for >delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit >of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. > >Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of >processing and then delegating TLDs. > >These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: > >- Clustering > >Several participants argued for different treatment for different >types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, >grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be >delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by >contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped >with .hiphop). > >- Financial > >Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who >agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and >that such points can be traded. > >- Choice > >Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio >applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. > >- Natural sequencing > >Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural >sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended >evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract >negotiation and execution. > >In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will >further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. > >Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis >for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the >requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. > >Conclusions: > >It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs >etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No >matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either >prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at >the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. > >Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for >clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for >processing and delegating them. > >A combination of various elements described above could be an >eligible solution. These elements could be: > >- Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an >expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. > >- Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible >delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The >applications will be processed in that order. > >- Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made >between external and internal factors. > >Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where >no additional information has to be requested and where no extended >evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that >quality should be a factor. > >External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are >given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. > >The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no >clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was >required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining >applications, the results should be published whenever the >evaluation is completed. > >The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next >stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of >different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. > >It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under >ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. > >Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize >and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible >approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not >necessarily represent the view of the participants. > >Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect >feedback and make that available later this week. > >Thomas Rickert

1 0

Half of all new top-level domains will fail, CIRA says
by Evan Leibovitch June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

Just half? That's optimistic. http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=67442 - Evan

1 0

IRTP C
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

I was asked to review the Initial Report of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C PDP WG, and recommend whether the ALAC should comment on it, and if so, to draft a comment. The call for comments can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e… and the Interim Report at English version of the report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf (other languages at first link). The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is primarily focused on the transfer of a registered domain name from one registrar to another. However, at the time of Registrar Transfer, there is often also a change of who the registrant is, yet the IRTP is silent on any aspect of that. Since transfers of this sort are often associated with domain hijacking, it should certainly be of concern to At-Large and ALAC. The PDP is also looking at a number of other aspects of IRTP including how Registrars are identified (currently some registries use proprietary identifications). I strongly recommend that the ALAC comment on this report and my draft comment follows. The initial comment period closes on July 5th. Alan ===================================================== The ALAC supports the general direction that the IRTP C PDP WG is heading. Specifically, the ALAC strongly supports all measures the will reduce the possibility of domain hijacking while still providing legitimate registrants the ability to change registrars. The ALAC similarly supports all efforts to formally define the process by which the registrant of record can be changed, with implicit safeguards to inhibit hijacking. The ALAC does not have strong views as to whether this needs to be a separate consensus policy of not, but the overall results and benefits to registrants should not be diminished by this decision. The ALAC supports the requirement to have all gTLDs use the IANA Registrar IDs (in addition to any proprietary ones if desired). Lastly, the report could benefit from a clearer overview describing the change of registrar and registrant processes.

1 0

Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs
by Evan Leibovitch June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

I don't always agree with Lauren (Weinetstein, I mean, not my wife). And I don't agree with the excesses of his conclusions. However, his take is an interesting one worth understanding. I have put forth the premise that the reason for the lack of African and applicant support TLD applications has only a little to do with poor communications. Rather, I suggest that non-speculators have determined they have better uses for $185K (even after an Applicant Support discount is applied) than for a TLD. - Evan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> Date: 25 June 2012 05:25 Subject: [ NNSquad ] Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs http://j.mp/LUsx5F (Huffington) "An anonymous Las Vegas casino owner has struck again - this time with a $1 million donation to help needy people." - - - The subject line I chose for this posting is purposely somewhat deceptive. There is no direct connection between this charity gift and ICANN. But it is still an *accurate* statement. We have here an example of someone who chose to use a million dollars to help the needy, when he could have used it for anything else -- including buying gTLDs from ICANN. When I saw this story, I couldn't help but be reminded of the 100's of millions of dollars -- approaching half a billion at least, that have been funnelled to ICANN for gTLD submissions, which will mainly serve primarily to enrich the domain-industrial complex -- and lots of affiliated lawyers as well, of course. How else might that vast amount of money have been spent in this time of vast economic want, when so many people don't have basic necessities. Imagine if those funds had been donated to charity, or for other truly community-positive purposes. I don't really blame the corporations that have felt it necessary to participate in the corrupt, conflict of interest ridden, ineptly executed, and ethically vacuous gTLD process. Since the process exists, it could be argued that it would be negligent from a business standpoint not to participate. I do, however, accuse ICANN in its current state of being morally bankrupt to a level that if not criminal, is at the very least bobbling at that threshold. They should be ashamed of themselves. More than that, we should be ashamed of *ourselves* for permitting this gTLD travesty to exist and continue, while so many people need so much real help, and the Internet itself is saddled with so many serious problems relating to control, free speech, censorship, and so much else. We are failing in our stewardship of the Net. Miserably. --Lauren--

1 0

Briefing Document: Second-Level Protections in New gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

During its 12 April meeting http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…, the Board passed a motion that included: >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD >Program Committee is not directing any changes >to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive >gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD >Program Committee directs staff to provide a >briefing paper on the topic of defensive >registrations at the second level and requests >the GNSO to consider whether additional work on >defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken; The briefing paper has now been released and is attached. The GNSO has not yet addressed this. I note that this initiative overlaps very significantly with the current GNSO Drafting Team focusing on special protections for International Red Cross and Olympics, and the Possible PDP on protections for Inter-governmental Organizations (See draft Issue Paper - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…) There is the possibility for up to three parallel efforts utilizing significant volunteer and staff resources and at worst could go in three different directions. Alan >Dear Stephane: >With the closing of the application period for, >and the pending delegation of new gTLDs, the >ICANN community is encouraged to continue to >consider the perceived need for defensive >registrations at the second level, and whether >additional protections for established legal >rights at the second level should be developed and implemented. >In its 12 April 2012 resolution regarding >defensive applications (top-level protections) , >the New gTLD Committee ofthe Board acknowledged >that the sense of the public discussion on this >issue through the public comment forum and the >public workshop at the Costa Rica Meeting >indicated that trademark protections should >continue to be discussed and developed for the >registration of second-level domain names. As >required by the Boards resolution, ICANN staff >members have drafted a briefing paper on this topic. >The paper suggests that the GNSO Council >consider utilizing one of its available >processes such as requesting an Issue Report or >conducting a policy discussion to address the >issue whether additional work on defensive >registrations at the second level should be undertaken. >We welcome comments on this paper. Please send >me any comment or questions you might have. >Best regards >Kurt Pritz >ICANN > cc: GAC Heather Dryden > ALAC - Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Agenda - ICANN Board meeting Saturday 23 June 2012
by Alan Greenberg June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

"I would have thought" was an indication that I am still less than happy with no open Board meeting, but rather closed ones instead. Alan At 20/06/2012 04:42 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >To clarify 'I would have thought' translates to >mean "I think y'all (ALAC) should be interested >in these 2 pieces of Board's business? > >Not a reflection on the agenda items submitted >for the Board/ALAC meeting, right? > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Comment a bottom > > >From: > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm > > > >23 June 2012 > > > >Consent Agenda For Approval: > >============================== > > > >- Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board > >Meeting Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 15 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 16 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 28 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 10 April 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 6 May 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Delegation of ÚãÇä (Oman) > >- SSAC Report on Dotless Domains > >- Ombudsman Regular Meetings with the Board > >- GNSO Improvements Program Wrap-Up/June 2012 > >- NomCom Transparency Guidelines > >- .post RSEP Request > > > >Main Agenda > >============ > > > >- Renewal of .com > >- FY13 Budget & Operating Plan > >- Location of April 2013 ICANN Public Meeting > >- WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > >- Any Other Business > >I would have thought that the .com agreement >would have been of considerable interest to the >committee. And the budget as well. > >Alan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Agenda - ICANN Board meeting Saturday 23 June 2012
by Alan Greenberg June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Comment a bottom >From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm > >23 June 2012 > >Consent Agenda For Approval: >============================== > >- Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board >Meeting Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 15 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 16 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 28 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 10 April 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 6 May 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Delegation of ÚãÇä (Oman) >- SSAC Report on Dotless Domains >- Ombudsman Regular Meetings with the Board >- GNSO Improvements Program Wrap-Up/June 2012 >- NomCom Transparency Guidelines >- .post RSEP Request > >Main Agenda >============ > >- Renewal of .com >- FY13 Budget & Operating Plan >- Location of April 2013 ICANN Public Meeting >- WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report >- Any Other Business I would have thought that the .com agreement would have been of considerable interest to the committee. And the budget as well. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Alan Greenberg June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

During the "reveal" Cherine made it clear that the archery process would proceed. But it was far from clear that the results would be used. He said that the Board had heard the discomfort in the community and would consider alternatives following discussions in Prague. I read this as saying they may be open to not using the results and using some other methodology to process the applications. Interestingly, one of the implications of the contention that the evaluation process will be far easier than expected due to the relatively small number of actually applicants (particularly after you exclude the .brand applications which are likely to breeze through) is that the price of $185k was an overestimate too. Alan At 18/06/2012 02:18 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >This new post justifies my original unease and adds to that evolved >from the Kinderis letter. > >But other than question the equity of the thing - not to mention the >kinda dumb attempt to sell this DA as more than a lottery + the >services being advertised to 'game' DA - I'm not sure the ALAC has >much of a dog in this race. > >Somebody will sue.... > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >For those who haven't already read it, see Antony Van Couverings >CircleID post from last Sunday - ><http://www.circleid.com/posts/0120610_biggest_glitch_of_all_icanns_batching…>http://www.circleid.com/posts/0120610_biggest_glitch_of_all_icanns_batching… > > >At 07/06/2012 06:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >please find below, more information about the Digital Archery which will > >be used to batch new gTLD applications into batches of probably 500 > >applications at a time. With a possible 2000 applications to process, > >some applications might only be processed much later than others and > >this "game" of Digital Archery will set applicants apart. > >Already several firms run by close ICANN insiders are proposing a paying > >service to "win" the Digital Archery using their automation service > >which they claim will ensure their client's applications are considered > >first. This means more sources of profit, but this also means that > >applications which were made possible by thanks to all of the work the > >community did to have Applicant Support, might be discriminated against > >since they will not be able to afford the automated digital archery > >winning service. > > > >Also, looking closely at the terms and conditions of "digital archery", > >(see video on > ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batchin > g-demo>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batching-demo > >at Time 2:37 mark) , applicants using the Digital Archery system agree > >legally that this is a contest of skill rather than a contest of chance. > >Clearly, with the Internet's differing delays depending on where you are > >located, and since digital archery system will be accurate to 100th > >second (as seen on the demo), it is *impossible* for anyone to display > >any kind of skill except by being physically at the data center itself. > >I remind you that delays on the Internet range from 3ms to 700ms or > >more, depending on where you are, since any satellite link will > >automatically induce between 300 to 700ms -- it is a physical > >propagation time needed. And these delays are jittery too. > > > >Is Digital Archery therefore allegedly a game of chance, not controlled > >by any kind of legal structure associated with games of chance, with > >open opportunities for cheating? > > > >There have been calls to the Board by some members in the ccNSO for > >Digital Archery *not* to be used and an alternative process to be > >followed, which may also involve *not* having any batching altogether. > >Others in the GNSO Council have also written to the Board about this, > >with similar findings or other alternative propositions. > >Should we support those comments? > > > >Alas, the Board correspondence page has its last entry on 21 May 2012 > >and the correspondence which I have been CC'ed into was sent on June 4th > >and on June 6th but I have asked if those have already been published. > > > >With Digital Archery starting on June 8th, should the ALAC issue a > >statement on this ASAP? > > > >I'd be interested in your points of view. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Olivier > >(the above message includes some of my own points of view) > > > > > >-------- Message original -------- > >Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement > >Date : Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:35:29 -0400 > >De : ICANN News Alert > <<mailto:communications@icann.org>communications(a)icann.org> > >Pour : <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> > > > > > > > >ICANN <<http://www.icann.org/>http://www.icann.org/> > > > > > > News Alert > > > ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en > .htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > New gTLD Batching Announcement > > > >6 June 2012 > > > >Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) > >applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching > >system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close > >at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching > >order is 11 July 2012. > > > >The batching process will be used to determine which applications will > >be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be > >done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. > > > >/Timestamp assignments/ will be done using the TLD Application System > >(TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and > >accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and > >select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed > >applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate > >a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to > >gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. > > > >/Batching formation/ considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, > >(2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among > >identical and "similar" applications. > > > > (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed > > last. > > > > (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition > > and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will > > be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, > > Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their > > secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from > > each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach > > selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a > > time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in > > applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining > > regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the > > opted-out applications last. > > > > (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention > > sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention > > set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the > > contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel > > establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be > > reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a > > result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch > > larger than 500. > > > >ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the > >batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp > >high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. > >Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, > >including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an > >application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if > >ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching > >system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or > >any other applicant's use of the system." > > > >Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional > >resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include > >a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user > >guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, > >which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at > ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/>http://newgt > lds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on > >security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these > >materials. > > > > > > > >This message was sent to <mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com from: > > > >ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > > > > > > >Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! > ><<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > > ><http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=Y > VM2&m=884550&c=165637> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Comm > ittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

Hello all, please find below, more information about the Digital Archery which will be used to batch new gTLD applications into batches of probably 500 applications at a time. With a possible 2000 applications to process, some applications might only be processed much later than others and this "game" of Digital Archery will set applicants apart. Already several firms run by close ICANN insiders are proposing a paying service to "win" the Digital Archery using their automation service which they claim will ensure their client's applications are considered first. This means more sources of profit, but this also means that applications which were made possible by thanks to all of the work the community did to have Applicant Support, might be discriminated against since they will not be able to afford the automated digital archery winning service. Also, looking closely at the terms and conditions of "digital archery", (see video on http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batching-demo at Time 2:37 mark) , applicants using the Digital Archery system agree legally that this is a contest of skill rather than a contest of chance. Clearly, with the Internet's differing delays depending on where you are located, and since digital archery system will be accurate to 100th second (as seen on the demo), it is *impossible* for anyone to display any kind of skill except by being physically at the data center itself. I remind you that delays on the Internet range from 3ms to 700ms or more, depending on where you are, since any satellite link will automatically induce between 300 to 700ms -- it is a physical propagation time needed. And these delays are jittery too. Is Digital Archery therefore allegedly a game of chance, not controlled by any kind of legal structure associated with games of chance, with open opportunities for cheating? There have been calls to the Board by some members in the ccNSO for Digital Archery *not* to be used and an alternative process to be followed, which may also involve *not* having any batching altogether. Others in the GNSO Council have also written to the Board about this, with similar findings or other alternative propositions. Should we support those comments? Alas, the Board correspondence page has its last entry on 21 May 2012 and the correspondence which I have been CC'ed into was sent on June 4th and on June 6th but I have asked if those have already been published. With Digital Archery starting on June 8th, should the ALAC issue a statement on this ASAP? I'd be interested in your points of view. Kind regards, Olivier (the above message includes some of my own points of view) -------- Message original -------- Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement Date : Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:35:29 -0400 De : ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Pour : <ocl(a)gih.com> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New gTLD Batching Announcement 6 June 2012 Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching order is 11 July 2012. The batching process will be used to determine which applications will be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. /Timestamp assignments/ will be done using the TLD Application System (TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. /Batching formation/ considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, (2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among identical and "similar" applications. (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed last. (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the opted-out applications last. (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch larger than 500. ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or any other applicant's use of the system." Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these materials. This message was sent to ocl(a)gih.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=YVM2&m=884…>

10 14