Hey Anne

I think the term "administer the community" does lack exact definition as presented in the AGB, however my interpretation has always been that "administer" is a very loose term aiming to illustrate a concept of an entity taking the lead on the community application. For example, I'm not sure any entity has "administrative" authority or "administrative" reign over any given language or language community (which is an example of community used in the AGB). There may however be a highly recognized or community endorsed entity (rooted in or linked to the community in some way) that is put forward to lead a community application for a given language community.

I do have reason to believe that was how it was interpreted in the 2012 round as well.

Jamie

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: Thu, October 17, 2019 7:06 pm
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<langdonorr@gmail.com>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com)"
<jamie@dotgay.com>

Jeff and Cheryl,
Regarding the EIU guidelines and possible adoption of a recommendation by the WG to continue with those in the next round, I have a couple of notes:
 
1. p. 4 - The Guidelines say re “Pre-existing” means that the community has to have existed since 2007 – assume we would need to change this date.
 
2. p.3 and 4 - There is language about awarding points based on the idea that the applicant entity was formed to “administer the community”.    Does this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression?  It would seem more appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community.   Is there an assumption here that all communities are somehow “administered”?  And was that the assumption in the 2012 AGB?
 
Maybe Jamie or others will have more background on this standard?
 
3. p. 5 – Re 1-B Extension – it is a bit confusing that the 1 point category is defined as “not meeting the 2 point category”  Is the only difference here the fact that 2 points emphasizes “considerable size AND longevity” whereas 1 point could mean “either considerable size OR longevity” or could the entity be of less than considerable “size” but have lots of longevity – maybe like the Kurds?
 
Thank you,
Anne
 
 
 
 
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 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
Because what matters
to you, matters to us.™
 


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.