In memo sent by head of ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), Steve Metalitz On May 9th, which asks ICANN to reconsider its ‘digital archery’ (DA) methodology for new gTLD batching.
Here is the full memo:
TO: ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee
FROM: Steve Metalitz, IPC President
RE: “Digital Archery” batching method
DT: May 9, 2012
I write at the direction of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), to urge ICANN to reconsider use of the “digital archery” method for batching new gTLD applications for evaluations.
On May 4, ICANN announced that over 2000 new gTLD applications have been received. Since the evaluation system is only designed to handle about 500 applications at once, it is clear now that batching is not just a theoretical possibility, but a necessity, at least under the evaluation system ICANN has adopted.
The “digital archery” batching method announced by the ICANN Board on March 28 is complex, untried, and readily subject to gaming. The paralysis of ICANN’s new gTLD application system (TAS), resulting from a so-called “glitch” that ICANN failed to detect in testing the TAS, has now persisted for nearly a month, with no defined end in sight. This episode inescapably casts doubt on ICANN’s capacity to implement another technically complex system for batching evaluation of applications. Another such “glitch” in the earliest stages of the most ambitious and far-reaching project ICANN has ever undertaken would permanently damage the organization’s credibility, and likely call into question its continued viability as the steward of the domain name system.
The possibilities for gaming the “digital archery” process are obvious and manifold. Inevitably, it will serve as yet another revenue extraction opportunity for those entities that are managing and promoting new gTLD applications. We are already seeing this happen. See http://www.pool.com/gtld/digitalarchery.aspx. This arcane and seemingly arbitrary batching method will also reinforce the widespread impression that all ICANN procedures are dominated by “insiders” with contractual relationships to ICANN, who will surely know best how to manipulate this initiative to their own benefit, or that of their paying customers. It is difficult to reconcile such an outcome with ICANN’s obligation to act in the public interest.
Whether or not the ICANN staff presented to the Board any options to the “digital archery” proposal before the March 28 decision, the fact is that alternatives were suggested by the community that would have avoided the serious pitfalls and risks – including but by no means limited to those mentioned above – of the method the Board chose. These included categorical batching methods, based entirely on self-selection by applicants of categories already provided in the Applicant Guidebook, that also would have prioritized the potential benefits of new gTLD launches, as noted by ICANN’s own economic experts.
IPC urges the Board’s new gTLD Program Committee, to which the Board has delegated all its decision-making authority for the new gTLD program, to reconsider the decision taken by the full Board on March 28, review the options available to it, and adopt a simpler, more credible, and lower-risk method than “digital archery” for batching new gTLD applications for evaluation.””
Last month we told you about Pool.com’s Digital Archery service.
Yea yea blah blah. ICANN can get away with whatever they want until the day somebody shows up with a gun (probably a goverment entity from somewhere) and changes the locks on the door.
ICANN should hand out tshirts at the next conference that read “ICANN, if you don’t like it then why don’t you cry about it”.
Digital Archery is far and away the best option available. This letter above says nothing. Its just another special interest trying to play their angle. Everyone has their own interest. ICANN developed the most fair system (Digital Archery) considering all of the implications and factors. .
Don’t worry, if digital archery can be gamed we will soon hear about how it was done after the fact.
The Internet Society of China also sent a letter (both in english and chinese) with respect to the decision to go with digital archery. The ISC raises very good points in my opinion.
The board will have to respond.
What many people are missing (including the IP constituency and In. Soc. China are missing is that the “gaming” aspect of the digital archery system is a key and desired component of the overall strategy. As it will play out -the best resources to capitalize on the Digital Archery system will also likely be in the best positon to succeed with their extensions. The last thing the ICANN wants (and the entire domain industry actually) is for bunch of dud extensions with underfunded and mismanaged companies (maybe they met the ICANN minimum requirements to launch the extension) however the extensions end up bombing and flaming out in massive failures. How does that work out for the rest of us. Just a big waste of time. The Digital Archery system is going to give everyone a fair chance and the once with either the best resourses (or maybe most creativity) Isnt that what we want for the new companies/extensions, given that many are likely flame out for various reasons. (how many new businesses fail?) Give the system a chance. Its part of the process of natural selection of the best extensions and the best companies to run them.
It’s not just about gaming. Both letters highlight other issues
Digital archery can be gamed in the sense that it involves some skill — if it were pure chance it would violate the CA law against private lotteries that precluded random selection.
The prioritization process preferred by IPC would put .community first, .geo second, .brand third, and .generic last — very problematic in that new .generic gTLDs are most likely to be of interest to domain investors and to exert some price competition against .com and .net.
@Philip
There is a certain humor in ICANN proposing a contest of skill and then having people object to it on the basis that “it can be gamed.” Indeed that is the POINT of a game of skill – to figure out the best way to do it and to win. As further noted above, it is a game which favors technical competence, which is precisely what should be favored. So not only is it a game, but it is a game relevant to skills related to actually running a technical system.
Additionally, that Mr. Metalitz believes a contest of pushing a virtual button at a predetermined time is “technically complex”, or is at all comparable to the complexity built into the TAS, speaks volumes about the qualifications required to evaluate what is, and what is not, “technically complex”. There is no comparison.
@John — Agree that it’s not just a game but a very relevant one — and it’s important for all to understand that the fact that “it can be gamed” is not indicative that cheating is involved but rather that having the required skills improve one’s odds.
nerds like computer games. what do you expect?
sounds like the trademark lobby is not buying the “glitch” story. they know when they’re being gamed.
digital archery. get real.
Why did ICANN “design” such Limited Systems ?
People talk about technical solutions, but everything from ICANN appears to be some lawyer-laden manual process that needs lots of expensive humans.
Then ICANN needs $185,000 for what could cost $185 at the .DMV ?
…and $25,000 per year for what could cost $25 at the .DMV ?
The U.S. Government could run a fair system cheaper. Why out-source to ICANN?
ICANN, you can’t 🙂