Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

good points. 

A couple of questions:

1- could not the writer of these 10 application include a standard paragraph in 
all of them stating the similarity and relationship you mention and other other 
advice you think worth mentioning.  I have not checked, but is there, a 'any 
other irrelevant Information' questions blank.  Any application should have one 
of those.

2- is there a necessary connection between applications using a template and 
filled in by the same authors having the same consideration and review aspects?

I do apologize for still looking at these issues from the perspective of 
someone who is not working on an application - in other words purely 
theoretically.  Out of curiosity, are there others in this group who are 
similarly 'uninvolved'?

a.


On 30 Nov 2009, at 12:29, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Avri Doria wrote:
>> hi,
>> Would/could  this not be dealt in the extended evaluation stage where one 
>> requests an extended review of the rejection on the basis of Confusing 
>> Similarity because there is no risk of adverse effect?
> 
> 
> At Sydney, ICANN's consultant on a portion of the evaluation process had 
> breakfast with Werner and I. We explained that as the authors of several 
> similar applications, we thought it likely that evaluation of similar 
> applications with no knowledge available to the evaluators that some 
> applications had a common property -- like 10 lines of total difference 
> between all of the applications sharing a common authoring property, that is, 
> a scaling property available to the author, would miss the scaling property 
> available to evaluators.
> 
> In a nutshell, I can write 10 applications for very little more than the cost 
> of 1 application, where the requirements are equal. If the evaluator is 
> unable to discover the similarity of the applications, the cost of the 
> evaluation must be closer to 10 times the cost of evaluating one application 
> than to one times the cost of evaluating one application.
> 
> My point is that it matters where in the application process information is 
> available to the evaluator.
> 
> Concealing the similarity, or the process being so stupid that the 
> information is not used by the evaluator, of .foo and .bar, leads to higher 
> costs (cost includes time) to the evaluation process.
> 
> So, to place the utility of the discovery that, say, VGRS is applying for 
> .mumble and .momble (invent your favorite IDN to IDN or IDN to ASCII 
> similarities here) in the failure-extended-review-request sequence creates 
> avoidable cost.
> 
>> Or do you think it should be a complicating factor in the initial 
>> evaluation?  Do we need a stmt somewhere in the doc allowing for this 
>> possiblity?
> 
> 
> Please see the point Werner and I tried to get across to the KPMG person. 
> What you suggest is a "complicating factor" seems to me to be major cost and 
> complexity savings for the evaluator.
> 
> Seriously, I've a score of linguistic and cultural apps that I expect to 
> differ by a few pages over a significant fraction of a ream each. What is the 
> rational basis for concealing the common case and a score of 10 page changes 
> off that common case, from the evaluator?
> 
> If no rational basis, other than the desire to spend more applicant monies on 
> repeated evaluation of the same application, exists, than what rational basis 
> is there, other than the same caveat, from knowing ab initio, that some two 
> or more applications have a relationship with each other, and that mutually 
> ignorant evaluation is the least useful course of action possible.
> 
> We shouldn't be designing the least efficient system imaginable.
> 
> Eric