Hi, I have posted my views on the wiki. For ease of reference, am copying my contribution here as well: To: ALAC Cc: Members of At Large Re: *Comments on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines* Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the difficult work and task in creating the guidelines. I have no problems with the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU)and think that they are better candidates at prescribing guidelines without getting emotionally involved. The Unit is universally recognized and their Publication – The Economist is read in most countries if not all. Their team namely Leo Abruzesse[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn1>, Phil Todd[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn2>, Manoj Vohra[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn3>, Lucy Hurst[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn4>have a combined synergistic experience that makes them perfect for creating the Guidelines. Their knowledge of market segmentation, emerging markets, ICT make them perfectly competent to carry out the task of preparing Guidelines. ICANN made a great decision to choose an organization that is independent from the gTLD application process so that there is no hint of impropriety, impartiality that would possibly open the scope for lawsuits against ICANN. Given that all applications by ICANN are fully transparent, it would be helpful to know how EIU intend on selections where they find that there is a situation where they are conflicted. On the matter of the CPE, kindly find my comments on the Guidelines below. I have only commented on bits that I felt were relevant. *Comments on Guidelines* * *I acknowledge that the task of creating the CPE is challenging given the diversity of possible contexts and variables. I note that in forecasting the guidelines, they would have identified the range of potential applicants, and they refer to this in the guidelines when describing “size” and “considerable size”. *Criterion 1 Community Establishment* *Comments on 1A* I note that the whole purpose of the CPE is to provide guidelines for an evidence evaluation process. My comments on delineation, is that whilst it is important to establish this clearly. History within the gTLD market shows us that this on its own is not enough. Further indicators (markers) should be added to 1A and if there are two competing applicants purporting to represent a “community”, then there should be other markers. Care should be taken to protect “traditional knowledge” and “indigenous communities” that may not have the technological savvy to navigate the systems effectively. For example, should Louis Vuitton decide to apply for .maasai and where a Maasai Elder is in the process of protecting their traditional name. Ron Layton of Light Years IP argues that the Maasai brand is worth $10million[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn5>. Intellectual Property and Traditional cultural expressions have been the subject of global discussions as early as 1967 when there was an amendment to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works for the protection of unpublished and anonymous works. Whilst Trademarks work in a manner where it is first come first serve, there has to be some level of moral and ethical consideration where it comes to reservation of names for communities and not allowing them to be exploited. Some would argue that open waters means every thing is fair game but I would submit that there are communities who need protection through leadership and foresight. *Comments on 1B* . “Considerable size” here is vague. This needs to reflect the diverse contexts. For example, Niue is a territory that has 1300 people on the island. Papua New Guinea is a country that has 8 million people. Likewise communities differ in size. Whilst the definition of size states that it relates to both members and geographical reach, this should be made clearer. Tuvalu (.tv), Palau (.pw), Tokelau (.tk) and Niue (.nu) are examples of small countries. Whilst their domain names were protected by virtue of them being country codes, there may be community applications from small countries and the matter of “considerable size” may differ. Large in terms of membership as an indicator, should a rough percentage be given in terms of the context or would that make it absurd. Large is relative on its own. Large in comparison to what? *Criterion 1 Community Establishment* *Comments on 2A* * * The “overreaching” component can be made a little clear and less ambiguous. There are some challenges that can be foreseen. Where there are multiple applications from situations where you have diasporas, how do you prioritise components showing “nexus”. For example, a country like Niue has 1300 people on the island but about 3500 live in New Zealand and were you to have a competing application to show “Nexus” what would be the demarcating factor? Similarly, the Chinese diaspora is global and the two indicators on “considerable size” may not be as efficient and if there are instances where the string identifies the community, there could be challenges in terms of internet searches. What if the information exists but is not available through internet searches. *Criterion 4 Community Endorsement* * * *Comments on 4A* There is no mention of individuals or government. There are some individuals who may not be part of an institution or organization but could potentially rally to make an endorsement or object. There should be instances where it is also not just about the majority because if there was insufficient notice to the communities to respond, those who understand the mechanics may be the first to lend their support. Care should be taken that this was gazetted and published in the newspapers in the countries affecting the communities in their respective languages and space for people to send their objections or support and a proof of this to be shown to ICANN. Just because they appear to be the majority does not necessarily make them the majority until proper notices are published within the countries. ------------------------------ [1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref1> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LeoAbruzzese.aspx [2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref2> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref3> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref4> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LucyHurst.aspx [5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref5> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22617001 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>wrote:

Good morning Olivier,

Sure, my comment will be before 31 August. I’m already on the guidelines and will give my comments shortly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Envoyé : mardi 27 août 2013 22:37 À : tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn Cc : 'Rinalia Abdul Rahim'; 'ALAC Working List' Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update

Dear Tijani,

On 27/08/2013 19:38, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote:

...

Rinalia, I'm working on the guidelines and will provide you with my inputs

...

The deadline is extended to 7 September.

Thanks for looking into this.

The deadline was indeed moved to 7 September due to our note to ICANN

Staff that this was a comment period that was less than 21 days in

length. There is no reply comment period. So the schedule which I laid

out, with a closing time for At-Large Comments on 30 August still stands

if we wish to remain on-track for a 5 working-day ALAC vote.

Kind regards,

Olivier

_______________________________________________ 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...)

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com