DA is also based on something random -- that is, whatever reference moment the selected timestamp is supposed to be closest to. The main difference between my checksum method and DA is that the applicant's "entry" -- in the form of the checksums of their applications -- already exists and can't possibly be gamed after the fact. I agree with Avri, that if the checksum method is susceptible to challenge as an illegal lottery of chance then so is DA. OTOH, there are a number of non-random methods to create the reference point for my alternate scheme. One of them could be to collect the first page of every application, make a checksum of THAT resulting (1900 page) document, and use that checksum as the reference against which to measure the others. - Evan On 8 June 2012 01:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 08/06/2012 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 7 Jun 2012, at 12:08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I believe that sine a "random number" is involved in the, it would be considered a lottery under California law and is thus not allowed.
Or at least that is the ICANN Legal staff's contention.
Yup. But I suspect that an outright random selection is pretty much likely to be considered a game of chance. Digital Archery, however is more interesting. If is is not game-able (as ICANN contends), then I don't see how it differs from a random lottery. If it is game-able, then we have an unfair situation. Either way it does not seem to be an appropriate solution.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56