<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
lang="EN-US">IG F</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
lang="EN-US">IG H
</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">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? </span><o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US"></span><o:p></o:p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">Could community experts, e.g. sociologists,
anthropologists, economists, etc. be engaged in the
development and implementation of this recommendation?
</span><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">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). </span><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
lang="EN-US">IG P
</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">Are these the correct criterion for assessing the
existence of a community?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">Are they based on research? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">Could they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of
academic and community experts?
</span><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">What other approaches for verifying community
could exist? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></blockquote>
and<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span><o:p></o:p>
<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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US"> </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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US"> </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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US"> </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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US"> </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"
lang="EN-US"> </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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US">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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>