Thinking about this overnight, it strikes me that there should be a different standard for applications defined as “Community Application” from that applied to “Community Objection” standing. I don’t think we should discourage new community-based applications. On the other hand, if a “community” is made up solely for the purpose of objecting to a TLD application by a third party (or even another Community), then that seems to fit more within the purpose of requiring “at least one established institution representing the community” and “long-standing with historical reference”. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D2DAC1.A29D3240] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:59 AM To: 'Karen Day'; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org Subject: RE: WT3 - Definition of "community" Proposal Thanks Karen and Avri, I hesitated to write anything into the document but wanted to raise a question about these two criteria: · Include at least one established institution representing the community · Long standing with historical reference I am not certain that we would want to discourage the formation of a new community around a possible TLD application. What if someone wants to apply for .occupywallstreet – and this is a free speech issue . Would we require affiliation with a particular longstanding established institution? I guess I sometimes think of a community as a group of persons associating for a cause. Would the NAACP have qualified when it was first formed in 1909? Does it qualify as a community now? Would ASPCA have qualified when first formed in 1866? Would it qualify now? Is there something about owning a trademark string that disqualifies an applicant from making a community-based application? (Hopefully not.) Would these organizations be disqualified from applying for community TLDs if someone shows: 1. Most African Americans aren’t members of NAACP 2. There are many other animal welfare organizations. Does ASPCA getting community application treatment close out the possibility that Animal Welfare League would get community treatment for .AWL? I guess National Organization for Women is out since there is already a new TLD application for .NOW. What if there are a bunch of new community applications based on newly formed organizations? Is that a bad thing? And do community registries have eligibility requirements? How should the eligibility requirements be evaluated in the application process? My bias would be in favor making consideration of community applications very broadly based, especially where free speech and freedom of association is concerned. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2DAC1.A279A4B0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Day Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:02 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] WT3 - Definition of "community" Proposal Hi everyone, After our last call on the basics of community, Avri very generously dove in and has pulled together a strawbunny proposal of the definition of community for us to discuss and refine. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1... Let’s see if we can come to consensus on how we want to define community for subsequent procedures, for applications, for CPE & objection purposes. Or, alternatively, if we can not achieve consensus on what community is, then we will discuss what those implications are on subsequent procedures. Please feel free to use “suggest” mode to comment directly in the document, but for the benefit of all, please send a short note to the list when you make suggestions, highlighting what your suggestions, comments or questions are. Best, Karen _________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day@sas.com<mailto:karen.day@sas.com> SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com<http://www.sas.com> [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert] ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
