Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal - Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 - 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN.....etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6118A.666A9B70] ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com>
What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens
On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
All,
In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution.
Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet.
Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed.
Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications).
Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500.
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc
Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots.
I hope this works as a reasonable compromise.
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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
<image003.jpg>
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 <https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance.
While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite.
Rubens
On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
All,
In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution.
Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet.
Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed.
Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications).
Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500.
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc
Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots.
I hope this works as a reasonable compromise.
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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
<image003.jpg>
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 <https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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@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.
Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> _____ 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 <https://comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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.
All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com>
Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this. No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<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.
Hi Ann, I think there is a difference between let move forward and to force to go forward, I do not think we need the latter (last time it was possible not to use given priority, if I am not mistaken). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 13 Apr 2020, at 22:52, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT.
I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this.
No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
[EXTERNAL] All,
Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in.
To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority.
So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules:
ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY.
Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos.
Thanks in advance for trying again.
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
Hi,
I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application:
In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs.
Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise.
Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization)
Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language)
"Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches".
P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance.
While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite.
Rubens
On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
All,
In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution.
Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet.
Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed.
Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications).
Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500.
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN
In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc
Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots.
I hope this works as a reasonable compromise.
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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
<image003.jpg>
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 <https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
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 <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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Yes, I am making an assumption because we are creating a process that needs to not only apply to the next round, but needs to be repeatable. Without knowing a specific volume in advance, I am making a proposal based on a formula. So, If I understand your modification, it would be: 1. If there are <120 IDN applications, those applicants that want priority will be processed prior to non-IDN applications. 2. If there are >120 IDN applications, 120 of the IDN applications will be processed before any non-IDN applications. The remainder of the IDN applications shall be processed in the following manner: * In the first batch of 500, which includes the 120 initially reviewed IDN applications, the remaining 380 applications shall be randomized including all IDN and non-IDN applications. * The other batches shall work according to the example below. Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-120 must be IDNs; 121-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:53 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this. No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<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<https://comlaude.com>
Hi Jeff, Thanks – assuming the 2012 round had 120 idn applicants, I would say: 1. If there are 120 idn applicants (or fewer) who check the box that they want priority, process those first. Those who don’t request priority get thrown into the remaining random batches and treated the same as all other applications. . 2. If more than 120 idn applicants want priority, I would go with your recommended system, but I would say that we should be processing no fewer than 50 idn applications per batch if that many have applied for priority processing. It might help if we were to come up with a “batch size” and “randomization” recommendation in collaboration with ICANN GDD. Then we would have more of a basis for recommending something Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:07 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Yes, I am making an assumption because we are creating a process that needs to not only apply to the next round, but needs to be repeatable. Without knowing a specific volume in advance, I am making a proposal based on a formula. So, If I understand your modification, it would be: 1. If there are <120 IDN applications, those applicants that want priority will be processed prior to non-IDN applications. 2. If there are >120 IDN applications, 120 of the IDN applications will be processed before any non-IDN applications. The remainder of the IDN applications shall be processed in the following manner: * In the first batch of 500, which includes the 120 initially reviewed IDN applications, the remaining 380 applications shall be randomized including all IDN and non-IDN applications. * The other batches shall work according to the example below. Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-120 must be IDNs; 121-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:53 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this. No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<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<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.
Thanks Anne. The Applicant Guidebook did talk about using batches of 500 if there are more than 500 applications. I will dig that up ad then create an affirmation for that. So, it looks like we may have a possible workable solution. Would love to hear more feedback on the proposal. Tomorrow, I will re-write the proposal based on the feedback and create an example. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 4:51 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff, Thanks – assuming the 2012 round had 120 idn applicants, I would say: 1. If there are 120 idn applicants (or fewer) who check the box that they want priority, process those first. Those who don’t request priority get thrown into the remaining random batches and treated the same as all other applications. . 2. If more than 120 idn applicants want priority, I would go with your recommended system, but I would say that we should be processing no fewer than 50 idn applications per batch if that many have applied for priority processing. It might help if we were to come up with a “batch size” and “randomization” recommendation in collaboration with ICANN GDD. Then we would have more of a basis for recommending something Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:07 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Yes, I am making an assumption because we are creating a process that needs to not only apply to the next round, but needs to be repeatable. Without knowing a specific volume in advance, I am making a proposal based on a formula. So, If I understand your modification, it would be: 1. If there are <120 IDN applications, those applicants that want priority will be processed prior to non-IDN applications. 2. If there are >120 IDN applications, 120 of the IDN applications will be processed before any non-IDN applications. The remainder of the IDN applications shall be processed in the following manner: * In the first batch of 500, which includes the 120 initially reviewed IDN applications, the remaining 380 applications shall be randomized including all IDN and non-IDN applications. * The other batches shall work according to the example below. Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-120 must be IDNs; 121-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:53 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this. No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<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<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<https://comlaude.com>
Sounds good. From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. The Applicant Guidebook did talk about using batches of 500 if there are more than 500 applications. I will dig that up ad then create an affirmation for that. So, it looks like we may have a possible workable solution. Would love to hear more feedback on the proposal. Tomorrow, I will re-write the proposal based on the feedback and create an example. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 4:51 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff, Thanks – assuming the 2012 round had 120 idn applicants, I would say: 1. If there are 120 idn applicants (or fewer) who check the box that they want priority, process those first. Those who don’t request priority get thrown into the remaining random batches and treated the same as all other applications. . 2. If more than 120 idn applicants want priority, I would go with your recommended system, but I would say that we should be processing no fewer than 50 idn applications per batch if that many have applied for priority processing. It might help if we were to come up with a “batch size” and “randomization” recommendation in collaboration with ICANN GDD. Then we would have more of a basis for recommending something Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:07 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Yes, I am making an assumption because we are creating a process that needs to not only apply to the next round, but needs to be repeatable. Without knowing a specific volume in advance, I am making a proposal based on a formula. So, If I understand your modification, it would be: 1. If there are <120 IDN applications, those applicants that want priority will be processed prior to non-IDN applications. 2. If there are >120 IDN applications, 120 of the IDN applications will be processed before any non-IDN applications. The remainder of the IDN applications shall be processed in the following manner: * In the first batch of 500, which includes the 120 initially reviewed IDN applications, the remaining 380 applications shall be randomized including all IDN and non-IDN applications. * The other batches shall work according to the example below. Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-120 must be IDNs; 121-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:53 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi Jeff – it appears the logic relates to DELAY in processing idn applications. The assumption appears to be that there are TONS of IDN applications. NOT SURE THIS ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. I was just suggesting a friendly amendment, IF THERE AREN”T MORE IDN APPLICATIONS THAN LAST TIME, why not let them move forward? If there are a bunch more, as assumed by your hypo, then we could RATION the processing of idn applications – not sure that 10% is right and would welcome others views on this. No silos here – just a question re the underlying assumption of extreme DELAY. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:40 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Sorry, I took it as a given that an IDN that did not want priority could opt out of prioritization. So that will be baked in. To respond to Anne, the public comment was mixed on whether there should be prioritization. Many commenters opposed ANY priority. Yes, some proposed them having priority. So, if we can think outside the box, I ask you to critique the proposal with the following rules: 1. ASSUME ONLY PRIORITY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT WANT IT, and 2. ASSUME YOU CANNOT PICK ALL IDNS HAVE PRIORITY nor CAN YOU PICK NO IDNs HAVE PRIORITY. Sorry, for the ALL CAPS, but I want us to try to see what we can live with and not stick to our silos. Thanks in advance for trying again. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Hi, I think we have to bake the priority-request-issue already into the application: In my mind it doesn’t make any sense if we proactively prioritize applicants that then won’t launch their TLDs. Any application that has a “sunrise period” provision in their application and is seeking prioritization should be forced to execute such sunrise within XX month after TLD testing. If you have a sunrise period and want prioritization: then execute your sunrise. Hence we should require applicants to indicate already in their application whether they request a potentially available prioritization. If you don’t yet know how or when you start up: don’t ask for prioritization. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:46 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) Why don't we add (in some ICANN style legal language) "Chosen IDN applicants have the right not to use the results of such prioritization, and in this case the respective applications will fall into non-prioritized batches". P.s: I think saying "or they go into the end of the queue" is another extreme and we need to avoid that too. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 13 Apr 2020, at 19:07, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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. ________________________________ 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<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<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<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.
Agree Rubens. Applicants under prioritized group could have a question to mark yes or no agreeing to be put under this prioritization. It will be simpler than debate one by one after during the process. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Monday, April 13, 2020 at 13:07 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) What if the IDN applicant prefers not being a first mover ? That was the case of brands in 2012, for instance. While I'm happy providing priority if the IDN applicant wants it, although evaluation priority address just one of the many issues faced by IDNs, I don't think we should prioritise applications that want exactly the opposite. Rubens On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:55, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal – Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 – 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN…..etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> <image003.jpg> ________________________________ 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<https://comlaude.com/>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@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.
Jeff et al, I would say that if we have the same number of idn applications as the 2012 round, or fewer, then ALL those idns should go first. I also think this is consistent with public comment on idns. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Prioritization of IDNs proposal (Proportional Prioritization) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, In an effort to offer a compromise between those that favor the prioritization of all IDN applications and those that do not favor the prioritization, I wanted to see if I could provide a compromise solution. Background The prioritization of IDN applications was a decision made by ICANN org well after all applications were submitted in 2012 and made a lot of sense to the community for the following reasons. (1) There were only approximate 115 IDN applications out of 1930 (about 6% of the applications); (2) it was the first round to ever accept applications for new IDN gTLDs, (3) part of the rationale for the first expansion was for innovation and expansion of the name space to the global community and (4) it was a good thing to do for the increased globalization of the Internet. Those in favor of prioritization of IDNs still believe that despite not being the first round, reasons (3) and (4) are still worthy of pursuing. Many who are not in favor of prioritization are afraid that the next round could see thousands of new applications including thousands of IDNs. To prioritize all IDNs up front could take months or even years (in theory) before a new non-IDN could be processed. Proposal - Proportional Prioritization What is we stated that the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. Therefore, if ICANN wants to create batches of 500 applications, the first 50 of each application batch processed must be IDNs. The remaining 450 would be random (of both IDN and Non-IDN applications). Example In a batch of 500, priority #1-50 must be IDNs; 51-500 can be either IDN or non-IDN applications. In other words if a particular IDN application is not chosen in #1-50, it would have a equal chance of being selected in 51-500. In the next batch of 500 (Applications #501-1000), #501 - #550 must be IDN (if there are any left), and #551-1000 can be either IDN or non-IDN In the next batch of 500 (Applications #1001 - 1500), #1001 - #1050 must be IDN (if any are left), and #1051 -1500 can be either IDN or non-IDN.....etc Thus in a round with more than 1500 application, there would be a guarantee of evaluating at least 150 IDN applications PLUS any IDN applications showing up in the randomized drawings for the remaining 1,350 spots. I hope this works as a reasonable compromise. 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: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D61189.25D2EBE0] ________________________________ 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<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.
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Jeff Neuman -
Maxim Alzoba -
Rubens Kuhl -
Vanda Scartezini