*Community Applications* Note 1) This note is to bring your attention that the following draft about Community Applications is added to Justine Google Doc to follow-up with the discussions that started there. Note 2) Since I was not part of any working tracks on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, the draft I put together is based on my own reading and the different comments that were added. Hence do feel free to remove/change any of the drafted text. *Definition of the “Community”* The community definition found in the “Council of Europe Report” and “GAG communiqué”, still not adopted or endorsed. A possible problem for there is no agreement on one definition because the term “community” could be used to describe an officially registered community with clear mission and vision vs. the community of a group of dispersed people that have a common interest. Providing a discrete “community” definition that satisfies all kind of communities would not be easy. While providing a detailed acceptable description in the Application Guidebook (AGB) of all kinds of communities that could be referred to by the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE). That would be also helpful for an applicant to community-based string to find easy supporting documentation based on the Community description in the AGB. *Categorizing Community-Based applicants * Applicants could be categorized as an 1) existing registry operator, 2) A new registry operator that applies on behalf of the community and might be specialized into community-based strings, and 3) new registry start up. *Application Guidebook on CPE Guidelines * With the above categorization in mind, it would be good to write a clear and detailed AGB that provides starters with step by step procedures and samples of the required documentations. Furthermore, the more details included in the AGB the more transparent and predictable the outcomes of the application reviews would be. It was noticed the concerns on the lengthy CPE review time, revising the CPE review timeframe to have new estimate of the expected review time for the CPE would reduce the applicant comments. Having an anticipated CPE Q&A section in the AGB will be also very helpful. *Issues of community-based string * Providing an elaborate description of “Community” might contribute to the reduce the proposed community-based string contention. It is expected that the community based string application to comes with certain package/model to serve the community registrants. This package is expected to be reflected in the applications as contractual requirements in Specification 12 of the Registry Agreement. Issues of Freedom of expression and association will always be a discussion point whenever there is a community based string. *Community-based Application process* First time community-based registry applicants need to have a good understanding of process difference between community related strings and non-community strings applications. AGB would be one reference for this information but providing outreach prior to the opening of string applications would be helpful. To avoid the excessive time in CPE review applications, it would be good to have an ICANN staff checking the applications and make applicants in compliance with the all the requirements. Provide a clarifying text and/or examples on each requirement in the application form, does help applicants to provide a crisp and precise replies within the restrictive word count. *Application reviewers/panelists and the CPE review process* There is a need for a clear selection criteria to be in place for the appointment of the CPE reviewers, to make sure that they are well informed and there is no potential conflict of interest. Since CPE has extra examinations steps, there is a need to put a detailed list of tasks required throughout the review process, this provide a better estimation of the review cost. CPE scoring still raises many concerns. There is a need to study the listed CPE criteria in the AGB and propose change if needed. Then testing this modified scoring criteria to be able to generate consistency among the evaluators scoring. Which might lead to lower the threshold score for success.