[Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December

Wed Dec 9 12:13:01 UTC 2020

Hi Jeff,

Apologies for my delayed response.

I read your proposed change (set out immediately following) as an attempt
to address 2 sub-points I highlighted before to do with (i) introduction of
community-related expertise into the CPE Process and (ii) awareness and/or
recognition by "members" of the community being not necessarily
ascertainable from those "members" themselves, the latter of which I note
Jamie has very kindly articulated an example you sought.

While welcomed, I would like to point out the need to include text to
compel the evaluator/panelist to not only consider, *but to also obtain*,
views of (relevant) community-related experts, especially in cases where
awareness and/of recognition by the community is not measurable (eg., where
such recognition is prevented by national law) or difficult to measure
(eg., where recognition is more adequately reflected by parties who may not
be or view themselves strictly as "members" of the community).

Thanks,
Justine

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 03:24, Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jamie.  I guess the confusing word for me was “expertise”.  So,
> what if we change the language to?
>
>
>
>    - According to the Applicant Guidebook, in order succeed in a
>    Community Priority Evaluation, Criterion 1-A stated that a Community
>    application should have the requisite “awareness and recognition” among its
>    members (“Delineation”).  The Working Group recommends that this criterion
>    must take into consideration the views of that community-related experts,
>    especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable
>    (eg., where such recognition is prevented by national law).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2020 11:41 AM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; Justine Chew <
> justine.chew at gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final
> Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
>
>
>
> Hey Jeff,
>
>
>
> On the point below, I think the concern is linked to the way the EIU’s CPE
> Guidelines required reciprocal recognition from community members to the
> chosen string in order to prevent the withholding of points in CPE. In
> countries where reciprocal recognition is not possible without severe risk
> or penalty to the community members themselves, there needs to be
> alternative solutions that don’t discriminate against the community
> application as a whole the way national law may discriminate against the
> specific community.
>
>
>
> In other words, it is impractical to ignore the fact that members of the
> gay community exist in countries where being gay is illegal, but it is also
> impractical to suggest that a community application for that community
> should be penalized in scoring because a limited segment of that community
> is unable to voice their support or acknowledge reciprocal recognition
> publicly because of repressive law. As you stated in the Third Topic email
> the other day … “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
>
>
>
> In our application for .gay, we provided written support from
> organizations (i.e. “community-related expertise” as referenced by Justine)
> that were providing critical support, resources and representation for
> those community members in countries unable to use their own voice, or even
> organize in a formal manner. In my opinion, that should suffice as one
> option to ensure a community applicant is not penalized in CPE, but this
> could also be addressed by highlighting in the CPE Guidelines that if
> circumstances prevent any portion of the community members from complying
> with the “reciprocal recognition” requirement that it should be explained
> in the application and taken under consideration during CPE scoring.
>
>
>
> I do not think this should be a controversial approach.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>    - Redress for the requirement of "awareness and recognition of the
>    community by its members" where such awareness and/or recognition could be
>    alternatively provided by community-related expertise, especially in cases
>    where awareness or recognition by the so-called members cannot be properly
>    measured (eg, prevented by national law to recognise something)
>
> Jeff: Can you give some examples of this as I am not sure what it means.
> Especially the phrase “where such awareness and/or recognition could be
> alternatively provided by community-related experience”?  So take .gay for
> example.  Within certain countries, we know that their national laws
> prevent recognition of the gay community.  So what practically speaking
> would establish “such awareness or recognition” alternatively provided by
> community-related experience?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 9:57 AM
> *To: *Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final
> Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
>
>
>
> Thanks Justine.  A few comments on your suggestions which are below in
> Blue.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Justine Chew
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:26 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final
> Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
>
>
>
> Here is the output of my review for consideration
>
>
>
> *Community Applications*
>
> [1] At page 160, Implementation Guideline 34.3 re: Criterion 1-A
> Delineation.
> Although the text draws attention to the need for a non-exhaustive list to
> include elements applicable to communities that are not economic in nature,
> it does not explicit touch on 5 other points that I believe the WG
> discussed, which are:
>
>    - Communities that are not economic in nature may not have clear and
>    straight-forward membership definition and this should to not disadvantage
>    such communities in terms of scoring as compared to economic communities
>    with clear and straight-forward membership, that both types of communities
>    should be able to score equally well
>
> Jeff:  Yes, we covered this and will incorporate.
>
>    - The extremity between "clear and straight-forward membership"
>    scoring high and "vague, dispersed or unbound definition" scoring zero be
>    mediated through an acknowledgment that a grouping without a clear and
>    straight-forward membership but could still be found to be reasonably
>    delineated may still receive a low score instead of zero.
>    - I also recall that the term "membership" in reference to
>    non-economic communities was problematic
>
> Jeff:  I think we can find some wording on these concepts that may work.
>
>    - Where could we explicitly introduce community-related expertise to
>    the CPE process, especially to assist in evaluating non-economic
>    communities for the delineation criterion where "community-related
>    expertise" could be represented by an International Organization
>    specializing in a certain field or a relevant subject matter / community
>    expert of regional or international standing?
>
> Jeff:  This recommendation is a little bit harder.  We mention over and
> over again that the evaluators and all of their policies must be in place
> prior to the closing of the application period. But if that is the case,
> then how can we find evaluators with experience in a certain field or
> subject matter if we do not know who will be applying?  Maybe I am
> misinterpreting the comment here, so if I am, can you please explain?
>
>    - Redress for the requirement of "awareness and recognition of the
>    community by its members" where such awareness and/or recognition could be
>    alternatively provided by community-related expertise, especially in cases
>    where awareness or recognition by the so-called members cannot be properly
>    measured (eg, prevented by national law to recognise something)
>
> Jeff: Can you give some examples of this as I am not sure what it means.
> Especially the phrase “where such awareness and/or recognition could be
> alternatively provided by community-related experience”?  So take .gay for
> example.  Within certain countries, we know that their national laws
> prevent recognition of the gay community.  So what practically speaking
> would establish “such awareness or recognition” alternatively provided by
> community-related experience?
>
> [2] At page 160, Implementation Guidance 34.4 re: the "Organized" element
> in Criterion 1-A Delineation
> While the redress for term "mainly" as being permissibly applied to more
> than one entity appears, redress for the term "administer" does not. I
> recall having discussed adding the "advocate" verb because an applicant may
> not fit the role of administrator for a community. I suggest that the
> reference to "administer" be augmented to "administer or advocate for".
> Perhaps an alternative might be "represent" instead of "administer" as used
> in Implementation Guidance 34.8.
>
>
>
> Jeff:  I think this makes sense.
>
>
>
> [3] The proposal to increase community participation or input in ICANN's
> engagement of CPE service provider/panellists is pending further
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Jeff:  This one will be subject to a separate topical e-mail as we said it
> would be taken to the list.
>
>
>
> [4] Reference to lowering of the threshold to prevail in CPE, which if I
> recall correctly was offered by more than one commenter, is omitted.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Jeff:  This one will be subject to a separate topical e-mail as we said
> it would be taken to the list.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Justine
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 23:14, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> And here are the original attachments for reference.
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 30, 2020 at 10:12 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report
> - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
>
>
>
> Dear WG Members,
>
>
>
> This is a reminder that the deadline for the review of the revised draft
> Final Report *for errors and omissions only*, if any, is *23:59 UTC on
> Tuesday, 01 December*.  Please see the details below.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 23, 2020 at 3:04 PM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE
> Tuesday, 01 December
>
>
>
> Dear WG Members,
>
>
>
> As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for
> review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with
> the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits.
>
>
>
> The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits
> made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the *actions
> agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings* held between 17 September and
> 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references.  These actions
> also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG.
>
>
>
> The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed
> in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General
> Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal
> Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change
> Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning /
> GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections.
>
>
>
> *Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are
> requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the
> redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors
> and/or omissions, if any.  If any errors/omissions are noted please send
> them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and
> text, respectively.*
>
>
>
> Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than *23:59 UTC on
> Tuesday, 01 December*.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201209/877311b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20598 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201209/877311b9/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24267 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201209/877311b9/image005-0001.png>