Hi, Tijani. I agree that the criteria would be crucial for the first statement to avoid gaming. We can certainly flag the importance of having appropriate criteria in place. There are options in terms of how to handle or rank community-related applications. It will involve some value judgement on what is important or valued where communities are concerned and it won't please everyone. But let's go into that when ICANN demonstrates that it is ready and willing to give preferential treatment to applications related to communities. On the language of the second statement, Olivier usually vets all ALAC statements. I trust that his mastery of English will improve whatever it is that needs improving. Best regards, Rinalia On Aug 5, 2013 12:53 PM, "Tijani BENJEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:

Good morning Rinalia,****

** **

For the first statement, I fully support it in principle. But as I said in a previous discussion on this issue, I’m a little bit concerned about gaming. It’s true that the AGB criteria for the community application are very tight, but who will decide if the application that doesn’t fit the community criteria has a community support??? Where you will put the limit? ****

During the elaboration of the JAS recommendations, some told me that Verisign (for example) can bring the proof of community support for its application, and yet, it is purely commercial.****

** **

So, I support the concept assuming there are clear criteria for any prioritized application on the basis of community support.****

** **

You will tell me this statement doesn’t go to the details; I agree, but we can add a word of reserve (pending definition of clear criteria).****

** **

As for the second statement regarding the panels, I support it. I’m not an English speaker, but I find that the language needs to be improved. ****

** **

** **

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director****

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)****

Phone: + 216 41 649 605****

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114****

Fax: + 216 70 853 376****

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****

****

** **

****

** **

-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Rinalia Abdul Rahim Envoyé : dimanche 4 août 2013 16:16 À : ALAC Working List Cc : ICANN At-Large Staff Objet : [ALAC] Urgent - ALAC Statements on Community Applications

** **

Dear ALAC Colleagues,****

** **

There are urgent emerging issues related to the new gTLD string contention ****

that the EXCOMM believes warrant an ALAC intervention. With the support of ****

Evan, I have taken the liberty of drafting an ALAC response for your****

immediate input. We need to submit the statements by the second week of** **

August (latest) to have the possibility of an ICANN response before****

community priority evaluation begins. Please do try your best to provide* ***

comments for improvements or endorsements if you like the text/intent via* ***

the wiki page indicated by Thursday (8 August 2013).****

** **

Policy Development wiki page links and statement text pasted below for your ****

quick review. If the wiki link is not active, kindly copy and paste the** **

URL for activation.****

** **

Thank you!****

** **

Best regards,****

** **

Rinalia****

** **

*1. ALAC Statement on Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in ****

String Contention*****

** **

WIKI page for your comments:****

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+PREFEREN... ****

** **

*DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS ****

IN STRING CONTENTION*****

** **

The ALAC notes that due to strict eligibility criteria, some of the new*** *

gTLD applications intended for communities and with wide public/grassroots ****

support were not submitted as community applications. These applications* ***

are currently in contention with those that are fully commercial (i.e.,*** *

driven purely by financial gain).****

** **

We firmly believe that applications with demonstrable support, appropriate ****

safeguards and emphasis on community service over revenue maximization****

should be accorded preferential treatment in the new gTLD string contention ****

resolution process. We thus support the position of the Governmental****

Advisory Committee (GAC) as per the GAC Communiqué dated 18 July 2013 and* ***

call on ICANN to review all 688 applications currently in contention and** **

provide preferential treatment to applications that meet the specification ****

described above.****

** **

END****

** **

*2. ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation* ****

** **

WIKI page for your comments:****

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+COMMUNIT... ****

** **

*DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY EXPERTISE IN COMMUNITY PRIORITY****

EVALUATION*****

** **

The ALAC has concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in****

panels that evaluate new gTLD community applications in string contention* ***

processes.****

** **

We believe that the evaluations have significant implications for community ****

applications and require sufficient and relevant community-related****

expertise in panels that evaluate the applications. In providing this****

advice we draw from the learning provided by the failure of the new gTLD** **

Applicant Support Program.****

** **

*Community Priority Evaluation *****

** **

Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook specifies that the Community Priority* ***

Evaluation is applicable only for community-based applicants. The****

evaluation is an independent analysis (i.e., not dependent on prior****

applicant review results) and that any community application that passes** **

the Evaluation will “eliminate all directly contending standard****

applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be.”****

Furthermore, community applications that fail the Evaluation will proceed* ***

into auction involving all contending parties where they may be at a****

disadvantage against fully commercial applications.****

** **

As per the new gTLD Program Timeline indicated at****

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/timelines, we note that the*** *

string contention resolution process will begin in September 2013. We also ****

note that the Economist Intelligence Unit and InterConnect Communications* ***

have been appointed as service providers for the Community Priority****

Evaluation Panel (see new gTLD Program Update at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in ****

2011).****

** **

We have concerns that these entities may have a natural familiarity and*** *

pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications ****

emphasizing community service over revenue-maximization.****

** **

The ALAC thus calls for community-related expertise in the Community****

Priority Evaluation Panel and stands ready to offer appropriate and****

un-conflicted ICANN community volunteers to serve as panel members or****

advisors.****

** **

END****

_______________________________________________****

ALAC mailing list****

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org****

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac****

** **

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org****

ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) ****