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the purpose of requiring “at least one established institution representing the community” and  “long-standing with historical reference”.

 

 

 

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·         Long standing with historical reference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

 

 

 

 

 

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/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1t0o/edit?usp=sharing

 

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

SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA

www.sas.com