Comment from Radix Registry - Unfair to Contention Set applicants

["Shweta Sahjwani" <shweta.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We would like to bring to the attention of ICANN how the system with respect
to its management of Contention Sets is flawed. It is not fair to penalize
any one group of applicants 

1)      Batching solution proposed by ICANN: We would like to point out that
ICANN made certain policy guidance that we and other applicants relied on to
make choices about string applications. Based on the original guidance at
the time of submission of $185,000 per application, we believed that batches
of 500 applications would be created. In that model, contention set strings
were supposed to be brought forward to the applicant with the earliest batch
number, and almost certainly the most applied for strings would have been in
the first batch. We reiterate that it was based on this guidance that we
made our application decisions and paid the application fee.

2)      Prioritization Draw: In the currently proposed model, the flaw in
the process is that Contention set applicants must all wait until Initial
Evaluation results are announced for all the applicants in their contention
set in order to move forward in the process. Which means that all the
contention set applicants get pushed back to the last draw number of the
contention set. Consequently, the more contention there is for a particular
string, the more delayed will be the resolution of that string. The most
contended and arguably the most valuable strings are being pushed to the end
of the process, possibly moving them by over a year after our projections
based on ICANN's original guidance. This is a material change to the policy
guidance we relied upon, and ICANN needs to align the policies of the new
system to be closer to the proposed model at the time of application. This
model deprives applicants with a lower draw number their right to proceed
through the system as per the number drawn by them. It penalizes applicants
who are part of contention sets, and consequently offers relative priority
to non contention set applicants, which is not a fair system.

3)      Single Draw Number: The 3rd model being currently proposed to ICANN
is that all the applicants of a contention set should draw a SINGLE draw
number. We believe that this system too comes with a huge flaw. For any Draw
such as the one proposed by ICANN to be fair, it needs to allow every
individual participating in the draw an equal chance to draw any number (we
are referring only to ASCII strings for this argument). By grouping every
applicant in a contention set to draw one single draw number, ICANN is
depriving each individual in the contention set of his / her own right to
draw a number which maybe lower / higher than the number chosen by the one
single applicant who draws for the entire contention set. Every applicant
has paid an equal amount of $185,000 for his / her place in the system, and
thus deserves to be treated equitably. Let us consider the case of a string
such as <.app>. ICANN has received 13 applications ($2.4 million) for this
string. How is it fair to group these 13 applicants together and allot them
one single chance at the prioritization draw? Each applicant is being
penalized only because there are others who have applied for the same
string. And each applicant is now receiving only 1/13th of a chance at a
Draw Number. This is grossly unfair to applicants who are part of contention
sets. 

Proposed solution

1)      Each applicant within a contention set should be allowed to draw
their own draw number.

2)      All the applicants from a contention set should be evaluated and
should proceed through the process along with the applicant with the lowest
draw number.

3)      While some may argue that this system is unfair to non-contention
set applicants, we would like to demonstrate how this is not really the
case:

a.       The system would be considered to be unfair if ANY applicant with
ANY draw number would be penalized due to it.

b.      Assume Draw Numbers 5 and 800 are in contention. The applicants who
may claim to be penalized by this can be grouped into two sets: (1) between
draw numbers 6 and 799. And (2) between draw numbers 801 to 1923.

c.       Let's take the first category i.e. between draw numbers 6 and 799.
How could the system possibly be unfair to them if there is ONE single
applicant and ONE single string being delegated at the priority of draw
number 5? How could it possibly affect them whether the applicant is draw
number 5 or draw number 800 who gets delegated the string? Each of these
draw numbers between 6 and 799 would retain their place and their priority
in the process as a result of this proposed solution.

d.      Let's now consider the second category i.e. between draw numbers 801
and 1923. In case of our proposed solution these applicants will in fact be
better off because effectively each of them moves one draw number lower
since draw number 800 got pulled down to draw number 5. This in turn could
not be considered to be unfair to any applicants because ALL of them
effectively move one draw number lower. They still retain their exact order
of priority. And so do the applicants between 6 and 799.

e.      In fact, if this is not done, it deprives Draw number 5 of his / her
rightful place in the order of applicants. He / she picked draw number 5 in
an equitable process and must be offered the chance to proceed through the
process with this draw number.

f.        In addition, if this is not done, it gives an unfair advantage to
Draw numbers 6 - 799 over number 5, because each of them would effectively
move one slot lower, while draw number 5 is pushed 795 slots higher.

Warm regards, 

 

Shweta Sahjwani

Strategic Partner Manager

Radix Regsitry, The Directi Group
Description: Description: Directi-250x86
Tel : +91 (22) 3079 7500 Extn: 8522
Fax : +91 (22) 3079 7508

Skype: shwetasahjwani