Hi Rubens – Thank you for your question. Indeed, there had been IRT discussions in the past on this topic, during which the IRT had asked ICANN org to look into switching to a deterministic rule as you put it. And an initial idea of how this could be done (though no AGB language) was shared during a face to face meeting. However, when we came back to the IRT and discussed the topic on 6 August, see recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/2aqzXP7GvwwgvBwBTtQP7ks80VFC7B9FhkiVyBSdW5oQ0...> and wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RADyF>, there was a clear message back to org that the draw is the preferred option and the design of a deterministic rule should be abandoned. If further discussions among the IRT are required on this, we can add the topic to the agenda. Otherwise, we are working on AGB language (and are conducting operational planning in the background) with the assumption that we need to repeat the prioritization draw in the next round. Input from you and others on list are very much welcome. Best. Lars From: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply to: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 14:25 To: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Community Consulation on Contention Sets Em 21 de ago. de 2024, à(s) 08:46, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu: Dear IRT members, Please note, the read-out form community consultation has been added to the IRT wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/Community+Discussion%3A+Resolution+...>. Specifically on prioritization, I noted this from the read-out: "and for merging the prioritization and contention set resolution draws,” I thought prioritization was being moved from draw to a deterministic rule ? Rubens