[ALAC] ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement

[Evan Leibovitch]

DA is also based on something random -- that is, whatever reference moment
the selected timestamp is supposed to be closest to.
The main difference between my checksum method and DA is that the
applicant's "entry" -- in the form of the checksums of their applications
-- already exists and can't possibly be gamed after the fact.

I agree with Avri, that if the checksum method is susceptible to challenge
as an illegal lottery of chance then so is DA.

OTOH, there are a number of non-random methods to create the reference
point for my alternate scheme. One of them could be to collect the first
page of every application, make a checksum of THAT resulting (1900 page)
document, and use that checksum as the reference against which to measure
the others.

- Evan


On 8 June 2012 01:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> At 08/06/2012 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >On 7 Jun 2012, at 12:08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > > I believe that sine a "random number" is involved in the, it would be
> > > considered a lottery under California law and is thus not allowed.
> >
> >Or at least that is the ICANN Legal staff's contention.
>
> Yup. But I suspect that an outright random selection is pretty much
> likely to be considered a game of chance. Digital Archery, however is
> more interesting. If is is not game-able (as ICANN contends), then I
> don't see how it differs from a random lottery. If it is game-able,
> then we have an unfair situation. Either way it does not seem to be
> an appropriate solution.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56