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 |
|
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 |
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 |
|
|
|
Because what matters |
|
to you, matters to us.™ |