IPC questions ICANN’s ability to execute digital archery.
Digital archery is doomed.
The clever way ICANN plans to “batch” applications for new top level domains will either be killed, or it will be subject to accusations and lawsuits.
Shortly after the bug in ICANN’s new TLD application system was revealed I wrote about how this was going to cast a shadow of doubt on digital archery.
Then, as the number of applications slowly trickled out and delays mounted, I mentioned it again.
Now ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) is sharing the same concern:
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.
Now, I understand that the IPC comes up with a lot of stuff to complain about. But it’s right in this case.
If ICANN goes forward with digital archery, applicants who end up in later batches will rightfully distrust the system after what happened with TAS.
The only way to make digital archery work is to have someone like PWC manage it. It simply cannot be done in house at ICANN.
My recommendation: find a creative economic way to persuade some applicants to wait for a later batch. With over 2,000 applications and $350 million in the bank, there’s plenty of money in the war chest.
Baxter Baker says
Thats a superficial view. The technical aspects are not as complicated as you are trying to make. What many people are missing is that the
Andrew Allemann says
@ Baxter Baker –
1. The technical aspects of TAS weren’t that challenging, either.
2. I have no problem with “gaming”. As you point out, digital archery is a game.
3. By your line of reasoning perhaps people should just pay ICANN to be in the first batch.
John Berryhill says
Andrew there is no comparison between TAS and digital archery from either a technical standpoint.
The reason why TAS was designed as something of a Rube Goldberg system was that there was a design approach to information security which was intended to limit access to substantive information to a very small number of TAS staff during the application period, while facilitating evaluation of the individual answers by the evaluators assigned to those respective evaluation tasks.
The last thing that ICANN wanted to have was a large group of people with knowledge of who was applying for what, and of the contents of the applications. That is the main reason why, when it came to fixing the TAS glitch, and simulating all TAS I/O to diagnose “who saw what” during the application period, it was not a matter of being able to simply throw more people and money at solving those two problems.
Any teenager with reasonable skill can easily code a single virtual button and timing target to record the results of digital archery.
IMHO, arguments of the form “TAS had problems, therefore (insert my pet agenda here” are specious as a class. There is nothing new in the IPC position on batching which has been in any way altered or informed by the TAS technical issue. The logical consequence of that simple and obvious fact, is that the IPC is simply using “a problem and any problem” to advance the position which it consistently held before the problem.
Mr. Metalitz is a smart guy. However, expertise in one thing is not transferable to everything else. I am aware of nothing in his education or experience which qualifies him to opine on the relative technical complexities of TAS and digital archery. As far as he purports to advance an opinion on the relative technical merits of those two things, whatever expertise he may possess as an IP attorney renders his technical evaluation to be no better than a random person on the street.
John Berryhill says
And, yes, the “criticism” that digital archery is subject to “gaming” is downright funny.
Absolutely, ICANN has proposed a game of skill in order to resolve the batching question. Absolutely, those with superior technical skill are likely to do better than those who do not.
It is laughable that the IPC would take the position that a demonstration of superior technical skill in an online contest would be a bad idea, when the very POINT here is to evaluate applicants to run an online system with requisite skill.
This would be like complaining that the membership of the US Olympic track team was “gamed” by the fact that the people on it were able to run faster than the other applicants.
In other words, “No shit, Steve.”
jw says
I agree with your recommendation to simply offer an economic way to persuade some applicants to wait for a later batch. For example, I imagine that there are .brand applicants that might be economically persuaded to voluntarily delay and perhaps find-tune their approach in a later batch.
Andrew Allemann says
@ jw – and they can always just try it. If not enough people volunteer for later rounds then go with another solution…
Baxter Baker says
I believe ICANN wants the most technically skilled and resourceful people and companies to run the new registries. Hence we have Digital Archery.