[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines

Mon Oct 28 23:25:28 UTC 2019

Hi Anne,

Well, “considerable” would be debatable – and the appeals mechanism creates
such debate: which is good. 

The same number of entities might be seen as “considerable” or not:
depending on the circumstances. 

I think we wanted to prevent that a club of 50 people calls themselves
community. But if for example the 35,000 people of the city of Chur in
Switzerland wanted to make sure THEY get “.chur” – they might apply as
community priority applicant. And I think 35k should be “considerable” for a
geo-community.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:26 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluation - EIU
Guidelines

Regarding the “considerable size” standard in the CPE evaluation, Alexander
has raised an interesting point.  I meant the non-citizen Kurd population of
northern Syria rather than all worldwide Kurd populations when talking about
a community with shared challenges.  If we are to establish appeal processes
and standards, “considerable” might require further definition.  

Would the estimated 400,000 non-citizen Kurds in Syria constitute a
community of “considerable size” in comparison to the entire population of
Kurds on the planet in all countries?  Or do the Syrian Kurds fail the
“Extension” test?  Would it depend on exactly what TLD name they were
seeking for the CPE Community?  So could the Syrian Kurds get CPE for
(dot)syriankurds or (dot)non-citizenkurds?   And what if the Syrian
government objected?

Maybe no one likes this example, but the point is that the attached EIU
Guidelines for scoring just say: “Is the community of considerable size?”
What does the word, “considerable”, mean to panelists who are subject to
being overturned on appeal and who have no precedents to follow?   

Anne

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:06 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<langdonorr at gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com> >; Jamie Baxter
(jamie at dotgay.com <mailto:jamie at dotgay.com> ) <jamie at dotgay.com
<mailto:jamie at dotgay.com> >
Subject: Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines

Jeff and Cheryl,

Regarding the EIU guidelines and possible adoption of a recommendation by
the WG to continue with those in the next round, I have a couple of notes:

1. p. 4 - The Guidelines say re “Pre-existing” means that the community has
to have existed since 2007 – assume we would need to change this date.

2. p.3 and 4 - There is language about awarding points based on the idea
that the applicant entity was formed to “administer the community”.    Does
this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs
for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression?  It would seem more
appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of
administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community.   Is there an
assumption here that all communities are somehow “administered”?  And was
that the assumption in the 2012 AGB?

Maybe Jamie or others will have more background on this standard?

3. p. 5 – Re 1-B Extension – it is a bit confusing that the 1 point category
is defined as “not meeting the 2 point category”  Is the only difference
here the fact that 2 points emphasizes “considerable size AND longevity”
whereas 1 point could mean “either considerable size OR longevity” or could
the entity be of less than considerable “size” but have lots of longevity –
maybe like the Kurds? 

Thank you,

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

 <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> AAikman at lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com

Because what matters

to you, matters to us.™

  _____  

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191029/f2feb5af/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 70 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191029/f2feb5af/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6525 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191029/f2feb5af/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2461 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191029/f2feb5af/image004-0001.jpg>