[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Final Report - DUE Tuesday 15 December

Tue Dec 15 14:26:44 UTC 2020

Justine.

Thanks for this note. Can you explain in practical terms what “or difficult to measure (eg., where awareness is more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves strictly as members of the community)” means.

The reason we inserted the previous portion (“where such recognition is prevented by national law”) is because it got a good level of support and was something that was easily obtainable.  If the recognition of certain communities are prevented by national law, that is something that can be shown (and proven).  But awareness “being more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves as strictly as members of the community” is not something that provides help to the IRT to implement.  In addition, other than the ALAC comment, I do not see in my notes that this later part had significant support to include.

If we do include it, we need to be more concrete about that second part and we need to have people weigh in supporting the addition.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[cid:image001.png at 01D6D2C4.67E87980]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:58 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Final Report - DUE Tuesday 15 December

Apologies for the delay in responding to this email. I have a couple of suggestions on the amendments to 34. Community Applications at pages 161-162.
1. Implementation Guidance 34.2: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, in order to succeed in a Community Priority Evaluation, Criterion 1-A stated that a community should have the requisite "awareness and recognition" among its members ("Delineation"). The Working Group recommends that this criterion must take in consideration the views of the relevant community-related experts, especially in cases where recognition or awareness of the community is not measurable (eg., where such recognition is prevented by national law) or difficult to measure (eg., where awareness is more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves strictly as members of the community).

(I had mentioned on this in my email of 9 Dec to the "REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December" thread)

2. Given that reference to "members" first appears in the above Implementation Guidance 34.2, perhaps we should reverse the order of Implementation Guidance 34.4 with Implementation Guidance 34.2, since Implementation Guidance 34.4 (now) provides for the interpretation of "members". In short, slot what is currently IG 34.2 (see above) as IG 34.4 and IG 34.4 as IG 34.2 instead.

Thank you for your consideration of the above suggestions.

Justine

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 03:11, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,

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 on the following:

  *   Actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held on 7 December and 12 December 2020, as noted in the Log with page references.  These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG.
  *   Actions stemming from the Co-Chairs Topical Emails 4-9 (see the Log for links to the relevant emails).
  *   Additional updates to Topic 34: Community Applications, based on email exchanges on the mailing list.
  *   In the previous (7 December) redline, staff made an edit in error to the text of Recommendation 25.5. This has now been reverted to the text as written in the draft Final Report (see pages 113 and 114). Apologies for any confusion.

Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to 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 Tuesday 15 December.

Kind regards,
Emily

Emily Barabas
Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20201215/6976a2cb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20586 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201215/6976a2cb/image001-0001.png>