[CPWG] Community Applications

[Nadira Alaraj]

*Community Applications*

Note 1) This note is to bring your attention that the following draft about
Community Applications is added to Justine Google Doc to follow-up with the
discussions that started there.

Note 2)  Since I was not part of any working tracks on the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, the draft I put together
is based on my own reading and the different comments that were added.
Hence do feel free to remove/change any of the drafted text.



*Definition of the “Community”*

The community definition found in the “Council of Europe Report” and “GAG
communiqué”, still not adopted or endorsed.  A possible problem for there
is no agreement on one definition because the term “community” could be
used to describe an officially registered community with clear mission and
vision vs. the community of a group of dispersed people that have a common
interest.

Providing a discrete “community” definition that satisfies all kind of
communities would not be easy. While providing a detailed acceptable
description in the Application Guidebook (AGB) of all kinds of communities
that could be referred to by the  Community Priority Evaluation (CPE).
That would be also helpful for an applicant to community-based string to
find easy supporting documentation based on the Community description in
the AGB.



*Categorizing Community-Based applicants *

Applicants could be categorized as an 1) existing registry operator,  2) A
new registry operator that applies on behalf of the community and might be
specialized into community-based strings, and 3) new registry start up.



*Application Guidebook on CPE Guidelines *

With the above categorization in mind, it would be good to write a clear
and detailed AGB that provides starters with step by step procedures and
samples of the required documentations.

Furthermore, the more details included in the AGB the more transparent and
predictable the outcomes of the application reviews would be. It was
noticed the concerns on the lengthy CPE review time, revising the CPE
review timeframe to have new estimate of the expected review time for the
CPE would reduce the applicant comments.

Having an anticipated CPE Q&A section in the AGB will be also very helpful.



*Issues of community-based string *

Providing an elaborate description of “Community” might contribute to the
reduce the proposed community-based string contention.

It is expected that the community based string application to comes with
certain package/model to serve the community registrants. This package is
expected to be reflected in the applications as contractual requirements in
Specification 12 of the Registry Agreement.

Issues of Freedom of expression and association will always be a discussion
point whenever there is a community based string.



*Community-based Application process*

First time community-based registry applicants need to have a good
understanding of process difference between community related strings and
non-community strings applications.  AGB would be one reference for this
information but providing outreach prior to the opening of string
applications would be helpful.

To avoid the excessive time in CPE review applications, it would be good to
have an ICANN staff checking the applications and make applicants in
compliance with the all the requirements.

Provide a clarifying text and/or examples on each requirement in the
application form, does help applicants to provide a crisp and precise
replies within the restrictive word count.



*Application reviewers/panelists and the CPE review process*

There is a need for a clear selection criteria to be in place for the
appointment of the CPE reviewers, to make sure that they are well informed
and there is no potential conflict of interest.

Since CPE has extra examinations steps, there is a need to put a detailed
list of tasks required throughout the review process, this provide a better
estimation of the review cost.

CPE scoring still raises many concerns.  There is a need to study the
listed CPE criteria in the AGB and propose change if needed. Then testing
this modified scoring criteria to be able to generate consistency among the
evaluators scoring.  Which might lead to lower the threshold score for
success.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180827/375906b9/attachment.html>