Consider a fairer draw categorization

["Janna Lam" <janna.lam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments to Prioritization Draw



1.      As mentioned under Section 1 (e), “The Draw is an exemption to
lottery laws in California and other relevant jurisdictions that permit
certain non--‐profit groups (including ICANN) to hold fundraising
drawings.” ICANN having its office in California is subjected to US Laws
which does not make it a global organization for the purpose of serving
the multi-stakeholders from all over the world. This restriction was the
initial primary reason why digital archery was suggested because ICANN do
not have the permit to conduct draws which is considered a lottery under
the California law. We went one big round and came back to the same
solution only this time ICANN has applied for the permit to do so.

2.      Each applicant has to buy a draw ticket which is estimated about
USD100. This is also the restriction imposed by California Law because
ICANN has to make applicant pay for a draw ticket in the name of
fundraising which the primary objective is not fundraising. Although we
have no objection to donate to charity, but the principal behind the
workings seem wrong. Applicants have already paid USD185,000 for the
application. ICANN do not have the right mechanism in place and not
prepared in the process now charge extra USD100 to conduct the draw. Is
there not a way to do the draw without having to pay? This is not a game
and definitely cannot be treated as a lottery.

3.      Sequencing and categorizing draws. Applications can be grouped
into a few broad categories be it IDN or ASCII:

a.      Brand TLD - single registrant TLD

b.      Geographical TLD - names with geographical location

c.      Community TLD - for the purpose of serving the community

d.      Generic TLD - dictionary words

Before the draw, TLDs should be grouped into their own category before
applying the following draw criteria:

(i)                Same applicant with both similar ASCII and IDN
(especially the clear cut case where direct translation can be applied)
should be given 1 draw number. At ICANN Toronto, the same question was
raised and Kurt flatly answered NO without further clarifying the answer
to that question. Why NO? Does it not make evaluation more efficient
coming from the same applicant and all the information is practically the
same except for one question that concerns IDN is going to be different?
Everyone pays the same fees for applying ASCII or IDN, so why should
priority be given to IDN? So far the argument behind this decision is not
convincing enough for applicants to accept. A fair system will be to
consider the different nature of use as categorized above.

(ii)              Same applicant with 2 brands that is necessary to launch
at the same time need to be delegated together for the purpose of
marketing. One example is the applicant for .yodobashi and .goldpoint.
Both TLD belongs to the same applicant while “yodobashi” is the
company’s identity name and “goldpoint” is the point program of the
company. Imagine both application draws a different number that can be one
year apart and that will stop them from doing the proper marketing of both
brands together which is the most important part of using the new gTLD.
ICANN should provide applicants to be able to put 2 or more names as one
draw if applicants can justify the reason to do so.



Best regards,

Janna Lam
IP Mirror Pte Ltd
9 HongKong Street #01-01, Singapore 059652
Tel: +65 6222-0105    Fax: +65 6222-0210
Reg No: 200003703C
Visit us at  <http://www.ipmirror.com/> www.ipmirror.com

IP Mirror - Asia's Online Brand Expert. Member of ICANN, INTA, APTLD,
APNIC, SITF and SBF. ISO9001:2008-Certified since 2005. BCM
SS540:2008-Certified since 2012.
Online Brand Advisory Services - Global Domain Name Registration - Domain
Name Recovery - Domain Name Audit and Investigation - IP Workshops and
Educational Talks
Offices: Singapore | Australia | Canada  | Hong Kong  | Indonesia | Japan
| Malaysia | South Korea | Taiwan | United Kingdom