On 7 Jun 2012, at 12:08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 07/06/2012 11:22 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I really don't give a damn about the method of random selection of who gets in what batch, with one exception stated below. There are many less-gamable ways to do the selection, based on data that has already been collected.
Here's one super simple example that most people on this list could implement (using open source software for maximum transparency): 1) make a checksum of each received application document that is in the pool (and publish the list of checksums) 2) create a random checksum (seeded by the moment Rod presses "Enter" at a public event staged for the purpose) 3) Select the 500 applications whose checksums are numerically closest to the random one.
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. Has anyone ever seen the argument that proves this to be the case?
...
I agree with Olivier that simply because orgs are promising ways to game the system doesn't mean they can. Even a psychic can be correct on occasion. But it's the *appearance* that the system is so easily game-able that sends such a horrid message outside the ICANN bubble.
Well those offering the service are clever. Like the house in a casino they win because statistics are on their side. Half of their clients would pay them even if they did nothing. I hope the digital archery services are bonded, otherwise anyone who trust them with their TAS account and password is a daredevil - not to mention the liability on the DA service provider itself. I would not be surprised if the DA episode buys a few more lawyers their dacha.
So what is there for ALAC to say?
ICANN in its (lack of) wisdom refused to consider the concept of categorizing applications before the fact, so the option of determining which subsets of applications are in the public interest is not available without starting the evaluation process. All we have is the "community" designation and IDNs. And ICANN has already said that applications requesting support won't be done in the first batch.
Personally, I would limit any comment of ALAC's to 1) Demand that community and IDN applications be given advanced priority as a matter of public benefit 2) Repeat our warning of the bias against developing economies evidenced by the relegation of applications requesting support 3) Note the damage to ICANN's reputation created by the choice of a selection method that can appear to be gamed
I find this is interesting. The only problem with using community is that this is just a claim some applications make. Unless there is a Community Priority Evaluation, no one actually determines the truth of the community claim. Or is the suggestion that now that the applications are closed and this can't be gamed since no one can now decide to become a community just for DA's sake, ICANN should just take the applicant's word for it. Another way to achieve a similar effect, which requires less trust, is to just push all the .brands to the back of the bus. Especially since they are reputed to only be applying defensively, how much can it matter. As for the bias against developing countries, that is something we all should repeat loud and often. while we all worked hard on the Applicant Support Program, the paucity of outreach on both the new gTLD program and on the Applicant support program means that the results will be far worse than I had hoped they would be. On reputation, when an organization is besieged by groups both internal and external who wish to destroy the organization, there is very little one can do about reputation. avri