[Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE: Supplementary Guidelines 4-B: Opposition
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Mon Oct 28 02:19:18 UTC 2019
Thanks, Jeff, for this.
First, I largely support what Jamie has set out in his email in respect of
4-B Opposition, and your conclusion at the top of your email.
Second, I appreciate that it's been mentioned and generally received
support, I just wanted to reiterate that selection of the next CPE provider
- in terms of community input into the RFP process - would be crucial.
*Third, I wanted to clarify -- for implementation, what additional guidance
should (or could) be provided to draw clearer distinction between
opposition (i.e. opposite to community endorsement) and objection? *
Thanks,
Justine
-----
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 05:04, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
> This one we discussed on the call extensively and I think we already
> discussed making sure that the there be a balance of support and
> opposition. If an Applicant demonstrates support from the community and
> earns full credit on Support, then the opposition MUST be substantial in
> order get points taken off. One letter from one individual or group should
> not necessarily be enough to lose a point (unless that group is substantial
> in terms of representing the community).
>
>
>
> Here is what the FTI Group states on Opposition.
>
>
>
> *Sub-Criterion 4-B: Opposition*
>
>
>
> To receive two points for Opposition, an application must have no
> opposition of relevance.197 To receive one point, an application may have
> relevant opposition from no more than one group of non-negligible size.198
>
>
>
> Nine CPE reports recorded one point for Opposition.199 In each instance,
> the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications received
> relevant opposition from no more than one group of non-negligible size.
> Opposition was deemed relevant on several grounds: (i) opposition was from
> a community not identified in the application but had an association to the
> applied-for string;200 (ii) the application was subject to a legal rights
> objection (LRO);201 or (iii) opposition was not made for any reason
> forbidden by the Applicant Guidebook, such as competition or obstruction.
> 202
>
>
>
> Seventeen CPE reports recorded the full two points for Opposition.203 The
> CPE Provider determined that the applications corresponding to 17 CPE
> reports did not have any letters of relevant opposition.204 Ultimately,
> FTI observed that the CPE Provider engaged in a consistent evaluation
> process that strictly adhered to the criteria and requirements set forth in
> the Applicant Guidebook and CPE Guidelines. FTI observed no instances where
> the CPE Provider's evaluation process deviated from the applicable
> guidelines pertaining to the Community Endorsement criterion. Based on
> FTI's investigation, FTI concludes that the CPE Provider consistently
> applied the Community Endorsement criterion in all CPEs. While the CPE
> Provider awarded different scores to different applications, the scoring
> decisions were based on the same rationale, namely a failure to satisfy the
> requirements that are set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and CPE
> Guidelines.
>
>
>
> 197 Id. at Pg. 4-17.
>
> 198 Id.
>
> 199 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-
> 7217-en.pdf); MERCK (RH) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-
> 1702-73085-en.pdf); SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-1830-1672-en.pdf);
> GAY CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> GAY 2 CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> LLP CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.pdf);
> LLC CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.pdf);
> INC CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.pdf);
> and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-en.pdf).
> No CPE reports recorded zero points for Opposition. 200 LLP CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.pdf);
> LLC CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.pdf);
> and INC CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.pdf).
>
>
> 201 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-
> 7217-en.pdf); and MERCK (RH) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merckcpe-1-1702-73085-en.pdf).
>
>
> 202 GAY CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> GAY 2 CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-
> 1830-1672-en.pdf); and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-en.pdf).
>
>
> 203 ART (eflux) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-
> en.pdf); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/musiccpe-1-1115-14110-en.pdf);
> ECO CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-
> 912-59314-en.pdf); HOTEL CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-
> 1032-95136-en.pdf); OSAKA CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe1-901-9391-en.pdf);
> SPA CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-
> 81322-en.pdf); RADIO CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083-
> 39123-en.pdf). TENNIS CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-
> 1723-69677-en.pdf); MLS CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-
> 47714-en.pdf); CPA (USA) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-
> 56672-en.pdf); CPA (AU) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-
> 1971-en.pdf); GMBH CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-
> 63351-en.pdf); IMMO CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-
> 62742-en.pdf); SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-
> 890-52063-en.pdf); KIDS CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-
> 46695-en.pdf); TAXI CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-
> 18840-en.pdf); and ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe1-1097-20833-en.pdf).
>
>
> 204 Id.
>
>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter <jamie at dotgay.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <
> emily.barabas at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of
> Supplementary Guidelines
>
>
>
> Good afternoon Working Group members
>
>
>
> On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to
> review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need
> further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures.
>
>
>
> My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes
> help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a
> Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further
> clarification before the next AGB is published.
>
>
>
> 1-A Delineation
>
>
>
> Page 4: “Delineation”
>
> The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes
> elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias
> towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind
> of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of
> bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural
> communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not
> use a membership card system.
>
>
>
> Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were
> accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round?
> And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the
> EIU?
>
>
>
> 2-A Nexus
>
>
>
> “Identify”
>
> The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for
> string closely describes the community *or* the community members,”
> providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string
> identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent
> on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to
> establishing nexus.
>
>
>
> My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a
> string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that
> identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is
> placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only
> identifier of that community.
>
>
>
> The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the
> definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths.
>
>
>
> 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a
> noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the
> context. (AGB, Pg 197)
> 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a
> globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it
> would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197)
>
>
>
> What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths
> must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The
> definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice
> to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS
> community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players,
> TENNIS coaches, etc).
>
>
>
> This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s
> confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second
> example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on
> how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS
> community.
>
>
>
> The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized
> tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use
> among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical
> therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that
> also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the
> path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks
> of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet
> these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with
> the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football).
>
>
>
> Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further
> clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the
> practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU
> appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both
> requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the
> requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call
> themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above
> run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction.
>
>
>
> Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be
> more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for
> string closely describes the community *or* the community members.” I
> believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants,
> one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by
> those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity
> of the actual members in the community.
>
>
>
> 4-B Opposition
>
>
>
> “Relevance”
>
> As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must
> include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not
> just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of
> the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community
> member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely
> aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in
> the 2012 round.
>
>
>
> To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations
> from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements
> represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional
> organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and
> even locally based organization from within the defined community among the
> thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2
> CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
> Jamie Baxter
>
> dotgay LLC
>
> jamie at dotgay.com
>
> www.dotgay.com
>
>
>
> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)
>
>
>
> Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com
>
> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM
> *To:* Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of
> Supplementary Guidelines
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the
> meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one
> of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning
> (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a
> question for consideration by the Working Group.
>
>
>
> 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag
> anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent
> procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf”
>
>
>
> One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were
> additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators
> (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will
> most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant
> Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening
> up. That message has been delivered loud and clear.
>
>
>
> Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could
> review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to
> see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or
> something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of
> our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after
> applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we
> formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential
> applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work.
>
>
>
> 1. *Clarifying Questions and CPE:* A second item which looks likely
> to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ
> process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not
> new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or
> issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be
> able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that
> have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can
> ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how
> representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is
> that they oppose, etc. *Those on the call thought this may be a good
> idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the
> opposition of real entities, persons and communities. *
>
>
>
> We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input
> other than that which we got on the call.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Emily Barabas
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019
>
>
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. *These
> high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the
> content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript,
> or the chat,* which will be posted at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
> .
>
>
>
> On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in
> the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in
> subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below
> for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are
> encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf)
> and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that
> they believe *should not* be incorporated into the AGB.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Item: *
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything
> they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent
> procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest
>
> - No SOI updates
>
>
> - Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on
> appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on
> the email list. The chart is available at:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> 2.a. Community Applications
>
> - Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level
> agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be
> more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be
> developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily
> available.
> - CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to
> address concerns raised about community applications before going forward
> with subsequent procedures.
> - Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in
> depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late
> in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information
> contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before
> applications are submitted.
> - Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the
> evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook?
> - Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in
> the public comments, which were problematic?
> - *ACTION ITEM: *WG members will go through the guidelines and flag
> anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent
> procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf
> - By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater
> predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future
> evaluators.
> - As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for
> interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation
> of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away
> when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that
> should not exist in subsequent procedures.
> - Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving
> transparency and predictability of the CPE process.
> - Review of comments on the definition of community.
> - One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the
> definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not
> incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized
> those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or
> industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority.
> - Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE
> panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from
> the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members
> of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists.
> - Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand
> the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN
> was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than
> having a specific definition.
> - In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for
> expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a
> result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was
> trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own
> biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role
> instead?
> - The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached
> the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus.
> - Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and
> predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary
> recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and
> predictable.
> - Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be
> applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will
> address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest.
> - Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent
> an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial
> opposition.
> - Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was
> research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the
> information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC,
> and NCSG.
> - Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower
> and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation
> note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more
> efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more
> detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to
> increase efficiencies.
> - Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope
> the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service
> provider should be responsible for remaining within budget.
> - Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE
> evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time.
> - Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All
> evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process
> opens and made easily and readily available.
> - Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE
> process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions
> and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and
> providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org
> raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that
> could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask
> clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly
> available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to
> ensure that the process is fair.
> - Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and
> relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for
> the WG to consider further.
> - One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their
> application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the
> application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to
> illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application.
> There is little room for lobbying from this perspective.
> - Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this
> opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency.
> - Additional question - should the panelists be able to send
> clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member
> expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity
> to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be
> clear that this is not about community-based objections but about
> opposition to community-based applications.
> - Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less
> restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and
> providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation.
> - It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing
> word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for
> increasing limits on word count.
> - Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist
> communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing
> applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this
> comment to the topic Applicant Support.
> - Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if
> an applicant scored below the threshold.
> - Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring
> of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition
> is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against
> the volume of support. There should be a balance.
> - Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be
> addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a
> form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem
> inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might
> address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well.
> - Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application,
> however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was
> incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would
> make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria.
> - Review of comments on whether there should continue to be
> preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general
> support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of
> community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community.
> - Review of comments on the Council of Europe report.
> - Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent
> should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and
> guidelines?
> - Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about
> letters of support should be clear and transparent up front.
> - Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and
> program goals raised by the Council of Europe.
> - Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public
> Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on
> this topic.
>
> 3. AOB
>
> - None.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191028/812cd9d5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list