Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: 1. First Batch of 500 * If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. * If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 1. Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw * For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. 1. Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw * When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. * The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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:image002.jpg@01D617CA.40759A50] ________________________________ 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>
Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with "mixed" applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC's urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don't think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and "work it out." Go back and work it out means delay. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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:image002.jpg@01D617BA.212AFE70] ________________________________ 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 Anne, 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. I understand it very different: In the first 500 we have 125 reserved spots for IDNs that elected priority (if there are 125 IDNs that do so). If MORE than 125 IDNs elected priority they may take up spots in the remaining 375 slots (if the “draw mechanism” puts them there). Any IDN that has not elected priority will only be processed AFTER all priority applications are processed. The reason why we want to grant IDN’s the opportunity to request priority is that we think we should allow them to “startup” fast. If they have no desire to do so: I fail to see the motivation to process them with priority? So if we have only 100 IDNs and only 10 elect priority: then only 10 are in the first 500 batch, and the other 490 slots go to non-IDN applicants. We have to leave it to the applicant whether they want a speedy evaluation or not. The 90 IDN applicants who would have NOT elected priority would be processed with all other non-priority applicants. It would be the wish of the applicant to do so. Call it “freedom of slow startup”. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 6:58 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] _____ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com _____ 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.
Anne, You description is almost right with a big exception. 1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN). 1. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications). 1. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn't matter at what point in time the applications were received. With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal. Hope that helps. 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with "mixed" applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC's urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don't think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and "work it out." Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: 1. First Batch of 500 * If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. * If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 1. Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw * For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. 1. Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw * When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. * The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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@01D617EA.D06C1A60] ________________________________ 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>
Ok, thank you Jeff - makes sense. Anne P.S. I doubt we have heard the last of the issue on the question of order of processing Community applications. From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:41 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, You description is almost right with a big exception. 1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN). 1. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications). 1. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn't matter at what point in time the applications were received. With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal. Hope that helps. 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 "mixed" (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with "mixed" applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC's urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don't think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and "work it out." Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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@01D617E3.53E32B20] ________________________________ 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.
Dear Jeff, If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only after those who requested priority have been processed. A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize IDN applications? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Anne, You description is almost right with a big exception. 1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN). 2. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications). 3. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received. With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal. Hope that helps. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] _____ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com _____ 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>
I agree, There should be no forced volunteering for the IDNs. What damage to the round and applicants and ICANN could be caused by later processing of those IDNs, who decided to do so with all other applicants? Maxim Alzoba On 22 Apr 2020, 11:58, at 11:58, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Jeff,
If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only after those who requested priority have been processed.
A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize IDN applications?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Anne,
You description is almost right with a big exception.
1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN).
2. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications).
3. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received.
With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal.
Hope that helps.
Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following:
First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority.
Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications.
Is the above a correct description?
Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
[EXTERNAL]
_____
All,
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language:
EXISTING LANGUAGE
No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds.
PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE
Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.*
*In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9).
Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications:
a) First Batch of 500
a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw.
b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.
b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications.
b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner:
Batch 1:
125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch.
Batch 2:
Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications.
Batch 3:
Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications.
Batch 4
Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings.
Batch 5:
There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications.
Batch 6:
Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings.
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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com
_____
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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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.
Dear All, I am closely and keenly following this mathematical exercise which could ends to very many of options. We need to be efficient and objectives. We need to also understand that there are sensitivities on IDN prioritization. However, time is of essence .We must conclude this issue very soon. Why not Jeff kindly take the closest options and try to streamline the differences and come up with a proposed compromised. None of the suggestions are wrong but we need to end up this dispute. Please establish a deadline of 5 working days. If no agreement is reached the approach taken in 2012, right or wrong; prevails Regards Kavouss On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:10 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree,
There should be no forced volunteering for the IDNs.
What damage to the round and applicants and ICANN could be caused by later processing of those IDNs, who decided to do so with all other applicants?
Maxim Alzoba
On 22 Apr 2020, 11:58, at 11:58, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Jeff,
If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only after those who requested priority have been processed.
A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize IDN applications?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Anne,
You description is almost right with a big exception.
1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN).
2. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications).
3. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received.
With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal.
Hope that helps.
Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following:
First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority.
Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications.
Is the above a correct description?
Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
[EXTERNAL]
_____
All,
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language:
EXISTING LANGUAGE
No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds.
PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE
Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.*
*In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9).
Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications:
a) First Batch of 500
a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw.
b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.
b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications.
b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner:
Batch 1:
125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch.
Batch 2:
Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications.
Batch 3:
Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications.
Batch 4
Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings.
Batch 5:
There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications.
Batch 6:
Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings.
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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com
_____
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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
I also agree, if we do proceed with the recommendation the IDN prioritisation should be limited to IDN applicants that participate in the prioritisation draw. Otherwise what will be the incentive for IDN applicants to participate in the draw if they think they could simply rely/gamble on a priority pass for free? Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Brand Registry Group The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 22 Apr 2020, at 10:10, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree, There should be no forced volunteering for the IDNs. What damage to the round and applicants and ICANN could be caused by later processing of those IDNs, who decided to do so with all other applicants? Maxim Alzoba On 22 Apr 2020, 11:58, at 11:58, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Jeff, If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only after those who requested priority have been processed. A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize IDN applications? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Anne, You description is almost right with a big exception. 1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN). 2. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications). 3. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received. With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal. Hope that helps. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following: First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority. Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications. Is the above a correct description? Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means delay. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications [EXTERNAL] _____ All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> _____ 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<http://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<http://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.
Hi Everyone. I too have been watching this IDN/ prioritisation mathematical exercise with interest . I totally agree with your suggestions Kavouss . We also need to consider the implementation implications and the overlap(s) with other policy recommendations . Cross reference them too. On each one of these “policy recommendation/ implementation guidance issues “ we need to set a completion date. We need to have a consensus vote on each one. Leadership need to determine voting eligibility, criteria and set key questions to vote on. As for IDN prioritisation . Clearly it didn’t work in 2012 round. My company has all the stats . I personally have always said no prioritisation - period. KISS. For a start we & ICANN have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how many applicants , applications there will be for a Round 2 . Let alone the category spilt/ mix . If I was to compromise let’s just use a percentage of the total , and make it optional on application , to be determined after the/ a draw. It would / could be applied to other “categories “ too. To me this has implementation , evaluation , evaluator issues too. Having been involved in 2012 , I always envisaged the (financial ) evaluators this Round processing applications in separate parallel category tracks along a critical path , so there would be no need for prioritisation. Jeff, Cheryl, Leadership team Please would / can ICANN starting recruiting for an Implementation & Operations Team. It absolutely needs to set up a new cost centre, establish & flex budgets, start an outreach campaign ASAP to establish the interest and demand in another round. Surely this needs to start to happen in parallel as we complete our Final Report. Thanks, Stay safe everyone. Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Apr 2020, at 14:23, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
I also agree, if we do proceed with the recommendation the IDN prioritisation should be limited to IDN applicants that participate in the prioritisation draw. Otherwise what will be the incentive for IDN applicants to participate in the draw if they think they could simply rely/gamble on a priority pass for free?
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton martin@brandregistrygroup.org Brand Registry Group
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
On 22 Apr 2020, at 10:10, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree,
There should be no forced volunteering for the IDNs.
What damage to the round and applicants and ICANN could be caused by later processing of those IDNs, who decided to do so with all other applicants?
Maxim Alzoba
On 22 Apr 2020, 11:58, at 11:58, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Dear Jeff,
If there are only 150 IDN applications, and only 75 of them have requested priority processing: then it is my understanding that only those 75 will be processed in the first batch, and 425 non-IDN applications. It doesn’t make sense to deny applicants to choose to NOT be prioritized. Any application that is not explicitly requesting prioritization should be processed only after those who requested priority have been processed.
A question: Why do we grant a request for prioritization? It is because the applicant voices a desire to start up their registry fast, right? Or are there any other motivators for ICANN or the Internet Community to prioritize IDN applications?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Anne,
You description is almost right with a big exception.
1. In the first batch of 500, yes the first 125 applications processed will be IDNs. But they are not the first 125 applications that are received. It will be 125 IDN applications selected by Random Draw (out of the pool of all IDN applications). The next 375 applications processed are not the next 375 apps received, but rather a random selection of 375 applications out of the pool of ALL remaining applications (both IDN and Non-IDN).
2. The second batch takes 50 IDN applications randomly drawn from all remaining IDN applications. The next 450 applications are selected at random from the pool of ALL applications (both IDN and non-IDN applications).
3. In summary, there is no temporal (?) component. In other words, it doesn’t matter at what point in time the applications were received.
With respect to prioritizing community applications, there was little support for that in the Working Group nor was there general support for that in the comments we received other than perhaps from some GAC members. That is not to discount that input, but rather just to state that for now that is not an element of the proposal.
Hope that helps.
Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:58 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
Thanks Jeff. The net effect seems to boil down to the following:
First batch of 500: The first 125 idn applications (or any lesser number) requesting priority processing get processed first. 375 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed next. (Could be a bigger number if fewer than 125 idns request priority, in which case, you are done with idn priority.
Second and subsequent batches of 500: If any idn applications requesting priority remain, the first 50 to have applied for priority get processed first, then 450 “mixed” (non-idn and idns not requesting priority) get processed in each batch. If the remainder of idn applications requesting priority in the second or any subsequent batch of 500 is less than 50, then the mix changes to accommodate all idns requesting priority and the rest of the batch is filled with “mixed” applications.
Is the above a correct description?
Separately, would there be any point in my bringing up a recommendation to grant some percentage of priority processing to Community applications? Do we have any standing GAC Advice on the point about Community Applications other than the GAC’s urging that we take into account the opinions expressed on this in the Council of Europe report on Community applications? (Once again I am looking at how to shorten times to agreement on policy that may end up as a bottleneck at the ICANN Board. I don’t think anyone on the Board is in the mood to make policy decisions where GNSO and GAC Advice conflict. They will just tell us to go back and “work it out.” Go back and work it out means 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
[EXTERNAL]
_____
All,
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language:
EXISTING LANGUAGE
No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds.
PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE
Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.*
*In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9).
Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications:
a) First Batch of 500
a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw.
b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.
b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw
a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications.
b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications.
c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain.
Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner:
Batch 1:
125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch.
Batch 2:
Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications.
Batch 3:
Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications.
Batch 4
Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings.
Batch 5:
There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications.
Batch 6:
Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings.
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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com
_____
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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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 All, I notice we are talking about an "application draw". I assume we won't create a convoluted, complicated, time-consuming and costly "lottery" again; instead facilitate the prioritization within the batches via "random numbers": There are providers who provide "real random" numbers (not computer generated: generated by physical devices but transmitted via Internet) of e.g. 128 digits - the application system can attach such number to each application at its inception. Once the application window closes, one last random number will be generated: All application assigned random numbers would be multiplied with that last random number to ensure a final randomization (think: Shuffling of cards). The resulting system-generated "prioritization number" would then serve as priority designator within each of the batches (applicants who request speedy evaluation and those who don't, etc.). So no "draw" but rather some system internal randomization, right? Or is somebody insisting on a 2012-style lottery? The only reason we had a lottery was, that we did not foresee the need for prioritization before the application window opened. At least that is my understanding. Whether or whether not a speedy evaluation is requested could be part of the application - and applicants should be allowed to "untick" that box at any time before their evaluation started (but not the other way around: if not elected before application submission then it can't be requested afterwards). Is that "implementation" - or would that be part of the AG? Regarding electing "priority": Any application that elects priority (IDN or non-IDN) obviously indicates, that it needs speedy processing. The ONLY reason for which we should grant such need is the intention to start up the registry real fast. If an applicant who elects priority in the evaluation proposes a Sunrise Phase in their application: then such Sunrise would have to be executed in timely manner; or else the contract would be terminated (the same way a contact will be terminated for not engaging in testing). If an applicant can't commit to the execution of their Sunrise in a timely manner: please do not elect evaluation priority. Is that reflected somewhere in our language? I don't see it. IDN's aren't a protected species just because there are IDN's. We want to aid those who have plans to go online fast. No plans = no priority. Again: if a registry has no Sunrise Period; then they would not be impacted by the rule anyways. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:47 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: a) First Batch of 500 a. If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. b. If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. b) Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. b. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. c) Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw a. When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. b. The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. c. The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/> www.comlaude.com _____ 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>
Ok, let me try to tackle this one point at a time: 1. Yes, we are proposing an application draw process like that used in 2012. It was convoluted, yes, but it was done to comply with the lottery laws in California where ICANN is located. If we continue to agree that the processing of applications (subject to the IDN priority proposal) should be randomized, then my STRONG recommendation is that we as a group do not try and mess with something we know both works and is legal. We may hot have loved it, but again it was legal. 1. If you recall our discussions and look at the section, there is also a recommendation to be more efficient with the process by recommending that one should be able to elect its participation in the draw and submit its fee (if there is one) at the time of application rather than having to show up in California with cash in hand (Assuming that this new efficiency change complies with the law - which it may not). 1. One who participated in the random draw is not making an assertion that they need to launch quickly. They just want to be delegated the TLD sooner rather than later. Imposing a use requirement simply because they choose to be in the lottery is not consistent with the working group's discussions to date. 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:39 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications Hi All, I notice we are talking about an "application draw". I assume we won't create a convoluted, complicated, time-consuming and costly "lottery" again; instead facilitate the prioritization within the batches via "random numbers": There are providers who provide "real random" numbers (not computer generated: generated by physical devices but transmitted via Internet) of e.g. 128 digits - the application system can attach such number to each application at its inception. Once the application window closes, one last random number will be generated: All application assigned random numbers would be multiplied with that last random number to ensure a final randomization (think: Shuffling of cards). The resulting system-generated "prioritization number" would then serve as priority designator within each of the batches (applicants who request speedy evaluation and those who don't, etc.). So no "draw" but rather some system internal randomization, right? Or is somebody insisting on a 2012-style lottery? The only reason we had a lottery was, that we did not foresee the need for prioritization before the application window opened. At least that is my understanding. Whether or whether not a speedy evaluation is requested could be part of the application - and applicants should be allowed to "untick" that box at any time before their evaluation started (but not the other way around: if not elected before application submission then it can't be requested afterwards). Is that "implementation" - or would that be part of the AG? Regarding electing "priority": Any application that elects priority (IDN or non-IDN) obviously indicates, that it needs speedy processing. The ONLY reason for which we should grant such need is the intention to start up the registry real fast. If an applicant who elects priority in the evaluation proposes a Sunrise Phase in their application: then such Sunrise would have to be executed in timely manner; or else the contract would be terminated (the same way a contact will be terminated for not engaging in testing). If an applicant can't commit to the execution of their Sunrise in a timely manner: please do not elect evaluation priority. Is that reflected somewhere in our language? I don't see it. IDN's aren't a protected species just because there are IDN's. We want to aid those who have plans to go online fast. No plans = no priority. Again: if a registry has no Sunrise Period; then they would not be impacted by the rule anyways. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:47 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: 1. First Batch of 500 * If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. * If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 1. Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw * For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. 1. Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw * When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. * The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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@01D617E9.B5AB4E90] ________________________________ 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> ________________________________ 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>
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Jeff Neuman -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Sutton -
Maxim Alzoba -
Phil Buckingham