2011-12-08 - Batching

Summary

Board authorizes President and CEO to propose to the community a "secondary time stamp" system for determining the processing order for multiple batches of applications under the New gTLD Program, determines that there will be no preference given to when an application is submitted, and determines that the Board will not approve a system including a random selection process.

Text

Resolved (2011.12.08.xx), the ICANN Board authorizes the President and CEO to develop a plan and propose to the community that a “secondary time stamp” be used for purposes of determining the processing order in the event that multiple batches of applications are to be processed under the New gTLD Program.  A “secondary time stamp” would require applicants who are interested in participating in early batches to obtain a time-stamp through a designated process following the close of the application window.

Resolved, (2011.12.08.04), there will be no preference given on the basis of whether an application is submitted in the beginning, middle or end of the application window.

Resolved (2011.12.08.05), the Board will not approve a system that would include random selection process for determining the development of batches.

Resolved (2011.12.08.06), the President and CEO is directed to add to the Applicant Guidebook that upon completion of the Board’s approval of a final designation of the operational details of the “secondary timestamp” batching process, the final plan will be added as a process within the Applicant Guidebook.

Implementation Actions

  • Plan and propose a “secondary time stamp” process for purposes of determining the processing order in the event that multiple batches of applications are to be processed under the New gTLD Program.
    •  Responsible entity: President and CEO
    •  Due date: None provided
    •  Completion date: Ongoing
  • Add to the Applicant Guidebook notice that the Board's approval of the "secondary timestamp" process, the final plan will be added to the Applicant Guidebook.
    • Responsible entity: President and CEO
    •  Due date: None provided
    •  Completion date: Ongoing

Rationale

The best option from an operational and process management standpoint, random selection, is not available. It is likely to result in lawsuit based upon California law that makes operation of a lottery illegal in most cases. Even if a random selection process were determined to not be a lottery by a court, those seeking to discredit, delay or halt the process would file a lawsuit.

The recommended option requires the development and implementation can be done outside of TAS and so not provide risk to the implementation of that complex system.

There is judgment required on the part of the applicant, i.e., when to submit the secondary registration in order to increase the likelihood of prioritization in an earlier batch.

One key to any mechanism is communications. Communications can be facilitated through TAS since applicants will have registered through the system.

Concerns that European and North American participants might have an edge through greater participation in numbers and a higher level of process sophistication are addressed by rotating the award of priorities through every region. There are arguments against this but it is thought that this approach better promotes diversity. In the end, no application is denied consideration.

Availability of an opt-out mechanism has been recommended several times in public comment. It will provide those entities that have elected to apply but not fully fleshed out business models time to consider the use of the TLD. Additionally, it will reduce the need and the importance of a batching mechanism.

Other Related Resolutions

Additional Information

Explanatory text does not modify or override Resolutions.  See Board Resolutions Page for more information.

Note: The "Add Comment" box below is for sharing information about implementation of this resolution. Off-topic comments will be removed.