Here is the output of my review for consideration

Community Applications

[1] At page 160, Implementation Guideline 34.3 re: Criterion 1-A Delineation.
Although the text draws attention to the need for a non-exhaustive list to include elements applicable to communities that are not economic in nature, it does not explicit touch on 5 other points that I believe the WG discussed, which are:

Communities that are not economic in nature may not have clear and straight-forward membership definition and this should to not disadvantage such communities in terms of scoring as compared to economic communities with clear and straight-forward membership, that both types of communities should be able to score equally well
The extremity between "clear and straight-forward membership" scoring high and "vague, dispersed or unbound definition" scoring zero be mediated through an acknowledgment that a grouping without a clear and straight-forward membership but could still be found to be reasonably delineated may still receive a low score instead of zero.
I also recall that the term "membership" in reference to non-economic communities was problematic
Where could we explicitly introduce community-related expertise to the CPE process, especially to assist in evaluating non-economic communities for the delineation criterion where "community-related expertise" could be represented by an International Organization specializing in a certain field or a relevant subject matter / community expert of regional or international standing?
Redress for the requirement of "awareness and recognition of the community by its members" where such awareness and/or recognition could be alternatively provided by community-related expertise, especially in cases where awareness or recognition by the so-called members cannot be properly measured (eg, prevented by national law to recognise something)

[2] At page 160, Implementation Guidance 34.4 re: the "Organized" element in Criterion 1-A Delineation
While the redress for term "mainly" as being permissibly applied to more than one entity appears, redress for the term "administer" does not. I recall having discussed adding the "advocate" verb because an applicant may not fit the role of administrator for a community. I suggest that the reference to "administer" be augmented to "administer or advocate for". Perhaps an alternative might be "represent" instead of "administer" as used in Implementation Guidance 34.8.

[3] The proposal to increase community participation or input in ICANN's engagement of CPE service provider/panellists is pending further discussion.

[4] Reference to lowering of the threshold to prevail in CPE, which if I recall correctly was offered by more than one commenter, is omitted.

Thanks,
Justine

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 23:14, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

And here are the original attachments for reference.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December

Dear WG Members,

This is a reminder that the deadline for the review of the revised draft Final Report for errors and omissions only, if any, is 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Please see the details below.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2020 at 3:04 PM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December

Dear WG Members,

As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits.

The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held between 17 September and 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG.

The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning / GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections.

Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any. If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively.

Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.