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 SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]
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these two criteria: · Include at least one established institution representing the community · Long standing with historical reference I am not certain that we would want to discourage the formation of a new community around a possible TLD application.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:image005.png@01D2DA05.516D3990] 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] On Behalf Of Karen Day Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:02 PM To: 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.
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.
Hi (co-chair hat off) I think that communities should have a history that at least predates this New PDP process. I think that an grouping that is assembled for the purpose of a gTLD application is a cooperative or an association or a non profit company but can't be a community. Personally I think communities emerge over time and are rarely intentional. As for Occupy, i do not know enough about their structure to know if it is a community. I do not think that a political movement is a community. They certainly have a right to a gTLD. Also I think that we need to pay as much attention to freedom of assembly in talking about communities, not specifically freedom of expression. And I believe that having institutionalized structures is an essential ingredient. A mob or a happening is not a community, it comes together for a purpose and then dissipates. Communities are long lasting and hard to kill off (though governments and other often try) avri On 31-May-17 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
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>
_____________________________
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] *On Behalf Of *Karen Day *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:02 PM *To:* 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
From Merriam-Webster Definition of COMMUNITY (plural communities) 1 : a unified body of individuals: such as a : state, commonwealth b: the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly the area itself the problems of a large community c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (such as species) in a common location d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society a community of retired persons a monastic community e : a group linked by a common policy f : a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests the international community g : a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society - the academic community - the scientific community 2 : society at large - the interests of the community 3 a : joint ownership or participation community of goods b : common character : LIKENESS - community of interests c : social activity : FELLOWSHIP d : a social state or condition - The school encourages a sense of community in its students. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:41 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] WT3 - Definition of "community" Proposal Hi (co-chair hat off) I think that communities should have a history that at least predates this New PDP process. I think that an grouping that is assembled for the purpose of a gTLD application is a cooperative or an association or a non profit company but can't be a community. Personally I think communities emerge over time and are rarely intentional. As for Occupy, i do not know enough about their structure to know if it is a community. I do not think that a political movement is a community. They certainly have a right to a gTLD. Also I think that we need to pay as much attention to freedom of assembly in talking about communities, not specifically freedom of expression. And I believe that having institutionalized structures is an essential ingredient. A mob or a happening is not a community, it comes together for a purpose and then dissipates. Communities are long lasting and hard to kill off (though governments and other often try) avri On 31-May-17 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
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>
_____________________________
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] *On Behalf Of *Karen Day *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:02 PM *To:* 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/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVr eVH2m1t0o/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 <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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 ________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
avri doria -
Karen Day