<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#330033;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#330033;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks Avri. One of the things I will be doing this week and beyond is to try and take the subjective statements and make them into
objective questions. I think we need to help refrain from making subjective determinations like “creating war machines” and other statements. Our job, I believe is to just ask the questions and let the eventual working group(s) deal with the substance. So
the question on whether the number of applications by one group is an objective question and one that should be included, but perhaps the commentary on any individual applicant and/or motives should be left out.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I know that you are just the messenger on these Avri, so this is not directed at you, but I have seen elsewhere in the document that subjective statements or
statements of opinion are in there and I will try to mark those up with some of my own suggestions on objective wording as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Thanks and keep them coming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347">Senior Vice President </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">|</span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C39209">Valideus
USA</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830">
</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">| </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830">Com Laude USA</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">Mclean, VA 22102, United States<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">E:
</span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#595959">
or </span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">T: +1.703.635.7514<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">M: +1.202.549.5079<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">@Jintlaw<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 30, 2015 1:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
Some of the questions/comments I have received passed on without attribution. I asked people to send them in directly if they wished. But just so the points aren't missed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG F</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Was community contention resolution efficient? What improvements could be made to improve efficiency for all parties? Impacts on efficiency included: CPE could only begin once all contention set applications had cleared initial and/or extended evaluation (this
was later changed). CO was extremely expensive and in Euros. CPE took up to six months. Nearly all community applications resulted in some form of Ombudsman/DIDP/RfR/CEP/IRP action. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG H
</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
What alternative processes – e.g. qualitative assessments – apart from or in tandem with a points or scoring system for assessing the existence of a community and the community relationship with applicant could yield more fulsome and accurate results?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Could community experts, e.g. sociologists, anthropologists, economists, etc. be engaged in the development and implementation of this recommendation?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Were the goals & intent of the community priority process clearly communicated to prospective applicants? Could clearer communication result in better quality applications (i.e. non-election by parties likely to fail and increased election by parties likely
to prevail). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG P
</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Are these the correct criterion for assessing the existence of a community? <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Are they based on research? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
Could they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of academic and community experts? <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
What other approaches for verifying community could exist? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">and<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">2. Create for community based applications some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for
geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist
in all continents.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality
is a crime is an evident nonsense. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world .</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized
by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies….</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">4. Clear rules against filibustering</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims
need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail
everybody oppose them.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set
aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer
and farer from Californians beaches…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent
that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the
best vegetarian dish.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity
of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the
bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that
is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was
not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the
future EIU and the applicants</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="99%" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.avast.com/"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1026" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>