[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 September at 15:00 UTC
mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW
mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
Thu Sep 17 19:20:25 UTC 2020
Thankyou, Noted. in general, I think that too much prominence is being give to the ancient EIU guidelines.
Not least because - if I get the discussion that we have just heard - nobody is really supporting those EIU texts.
Furthermore, should ICANN.org decide to call for tenders for that service in the next round (¿?), a competitor to EIU could very well argue, in the light of this report on today's discussion, that EIU had an unfair, incumbent's, advantage; however, disgruntled some of us are about the EIU's stewardship in the 2012 Round.
Just a thought
CW
> El 17 de septiembre de 2020 a las 20:55 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> escribió:
>
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the notes from the meeting on 17 September at 15:00 UTC. 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/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP .
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Julie
>
>
>
> Notes and Action Items:
>
>
>
> Actions:
>
>
>
> CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations/Implementation Guidance:
>
>
>
> Re: “Pre-Existing”:
>
> ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.”
>
>
>
> Re: “Delineation”:
>
> ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive].
>
>
>
> Notes:
>
>
>
> 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
>
>
>
> 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance; see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20aug20-en.pdf, Topic 34: Community Applications, page 157; with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing; and the Proposal by At-Large https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01B.%20CPE%20Guidelines%20-%20At-Large%20Proposal%2011.06.2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1592012489000&api=v2
>
>
>
> Proposal by At-Large:
>
>
>
> -- Received the proposal from At-Large or a subset thereof.
>
> -- Asked them to resubmit during public comment.
>
>
>
> CPE Guidelines with WG Redlines/Comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> -- Redline from Anne Aikman-Scalese.
>
> -- Would need to harmonize against the WG’s recommendation.
>
> -- Verify that it’s the same language that is in the Draft Final Report.
>
>
>
> Re: "Pre-existing" means that a community has been active as such since before the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed in September 2007.
>
>
>
> -- We would need to develop a recommendation for what we think “Pre-existing” means – some period of time prior to a round opening up.
>
> -- Do we really want this pre-existing commitment to be so strict? Are the rest of the guidelines the guardrails about what it means to be a community?
>
> -- This was designed to prevent gaming.
>
> -- Don’t know that the reason for this being here is really a reason.
>
> -- If there is an arbitrary window it should be shorter and with exceptions.
>
> -- If we keep the statement with any timeline it almost guarantees that the concept of community application applied to a community with a piece of paper with a starting date on it. It has to be demonstrably a group, but putting a timeline on it means it has to be an officially sanctioned group. This has to go.
>
> -- Also, there might be geographic communities, which just established themselves as a result from foundation of new countries. We saw that in eastern europe just a couple of years ago.
>
> -- Or just say it has to be pre-existing before the opening up of the application window.
>
> -- Report says there should be a predictable window based on volume or time.
>
> -- Dropping it entirely is a major change.
>
> -- It is also part of the scoring “Has the community been active since at least September 2007?”
>
> -- Keep it but without the requirement for documented proof, but demonstrable.
>
> -- We could note it for the very particular and strenuous discourse in deciding to drop or not in implementation.
>
> -- “Pre-existing” should be in the patent/copyright form – that it was around (not documented).
>
> -- Could be a loose association of people as a community. Could note that governmental sources of proof are only one method. Do like the suggestion that it should be by the application date.
>
> -- I would argue that a good case for a "Well defined and clearly delineated organised community" would be bolstered by as MUCH evidence as possible.
>
> -- If you use the term “pre-existing” we should be clear that this does not require documented proof.
>
> -- The easiest thing to do is to just make it that when we say “pre-existing” it needs to have had activities prior to the opening of the application window.
>
> -- How about "demonstrable and significant activities"?
>
> -- Or just use the term "established" then burden of proof is influenced by actual evidence
whatever it may be as presented.
>
> -- If we don’t say anything the IRT could make the assumption that for the next round the approval could be 2020 so the cut off is December 2020. We need to provide guidance.
>
> -- Saying “Pre-existing” means that it is a “community” as defined in these Guidelines prior to the application window opening.
>
> -- The At-Large proposal proposes "prior to the launch of this application window" (this meaning the applicable application window).
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.”
>
>
>
> Re: “Delineation”:
>
>
>
> -- The problem was the deep dive in the Evaluation Guidelines. It is discriminatory.
>
> -- At-Large’s proposal was to redraft the Guidelines.
>
> -- The Evaluation Guidelines on delineation favor communities with large and structured memberships, over other less-structured groupings. Favors membership communities.
>
> -- At-Large’s proposal provided a looser definition of a community.
>
> -- The At-Large proposal went through the usual mechanism for proposing text for At-Large to endorse; it has been endorsed by At-Large, it wasn’t put to a formal vote.
>
> -- Does the WG agree that the definition in the Evaluation Guidelines is too narrowly focused?
>
> -- The left side text is from the AGB, so the WG should consider whether the left-hand text is problematic.
>
> -- Sounds like the word “membership” should be removed.
>
> -- Changing the AGB language is a bigger deal than changing the Evaluation Guidelines. We could say by “delineation this is what was actually meant”.
>
> -- We could add Implementation Guidance that it is our belief that the EIU too narrowly interpreted the definition of “delineation” and we think it should cover [whatever we think it should].
>
> -- Even if we were to change the interpretation the AGB says, “where a clear and straight-forward membership definition scores high”. Need to not have discriminatory scoring.
>
> -- Changing the scoring would be a big change.
>
> -- Being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community.
>
> -- We’ve discussed this for many years and we haven’t agreed to change the scoring or the elements of the scoring. We are talking about the interpretation that the EIU provided.
>
> -- Helpful for the WG to indicate in comments to the Guidelines what we think “delineation” should also apply to.
>
> -- Agree that the way this was interpreted by EIU was not what was intended.
>
> -- WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive].
>
> -- After we review the CPE Guidelines we’ll need to see if there are any other impacts.
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive].
>
>
>
> Re: “Organized” and Was the entity established to administer the community?
>
>
>
> -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: 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?
>
> -- We should be thinking of administering and/or advocating on the behalf of a community.
>
> -- We are trying to see if the applicant is one who is responsible for organizing community activities?
>
> -- There is also a really narrow approach by the EIU here.
>
> -- We need to have two tracks to deal with Community applications. For PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities you have to Apply all criteria. But for the others you need to introduce flexibility…
>
> -- Are there communities that have various entities that administer their activities? Seems like those would be scored lower.
>
>
>
> Re: “Extension”: and “The following questions must be scored when evaluating the application: Is the community of considerable size? Does the community demonstrate longevity?
>
>
>
> -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: t 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?
>
> -- “Longevity” is a forward-looking criteria.
>
>
>
> 3. AOB: Has there been any further activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs. I know there were meetings months ago but it’s been months.
>
>
>
> -- There was a recent call. We’ll add that as an agenda item at the start of the next meeting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200917/4309a432/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list