Thanks Jamie. I guess the confusing word for me was “expertise”. So, what if we change the language to?
- According to the Applicant Guidebook, in order succeed in a Community Priority Evaluation, Criterion 1-A stated that a Community application should have the requisite “awareness and recognition”
among its members (“Delineation”). The Working Group recommends that this criterion must take into consideration the views of that community-related experts, especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable (eg., where such recognition
is prevented by national law).
|
|
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 http://jjnsolutions.com |
From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 11:41 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
Hey Jeff,
On the point below, I think the concern is linked to the way the EIU’s CPE Guidelines required reciprocal recognition from community members to the chosen string in order to prevent the withholding
of points in CPE. In countries where reciprocal recognition is not possible without severe risk or penalty to the community members themselves, there needs to be alternative solutions that don’t discriminate against the community application as a whole the
way national law may discriminate against the specific community.
In other words, it is impractical to ignore the fact that members of the gay community exist in countries where being gay is illegal, but it is also impractical to suggest that a community
application for that community should be penalized in scoring because a limited segment of that community is unable to voice their support or acknowledge reciprocal recognition publicly because of repressive law. As you stated in the Third Topic email the
other day … “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
In our application for .gay, we provided written support from organizations (i.e. “community-related expertise” as referenced by Justine) that were providing critical support, resources and
representation for those community members in countries unable to use their own voice, or even organize in a formal manner. In my opinion, that should suffice as one option to ensure a community applicant is not penalized in CPE, but this could also be addressed
by highlighting in the CPE Guidelines that if circumstances prevent any portion of the community members from complying with the “reciprocal recognition” requirement that it should be explained in the application and taken under consideration during CPE scoring.
I do not think this should be a controversial approach.
Cheers
Jamie
- 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)
Jeff: Can you give some examples of this as I am not sure what it means. Especially the phrase “where such awareness and/or recognition could be alternatively provided by community-related experience”? So take
.gay for example. Within certain countries, we know that their national laws prevent recognition of the gay community. So what practically speaking would establish “such awareness or recognition” alternatively provided by community-related experience?
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman
<jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 9:57 AM
To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
Thanks Justine. A few comments on your suggestions which are below in
Blue.
|
|
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 |
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:26 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
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
Jeff: Yes, we covered this and will incorporate.
-
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
Jeff: I think we can find some wording on these concepts that may work.
-
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?
Jeff: This recommendation is a little bit harder. We mention over and over again that the evaluators and all of their policies must be in place prior
to the closing of the application period. But if that is the case, then how can we find evaluators with experience in a certain field or subject matter if we do not know who will be applying? Maybe I am misinterpreting the comment here, so if I am, can you
please explain?
-
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)
Jeff: Can you give some examples of this as I am not sure what it means. Especially the phrase “where such awareness and/or recognition could be alternatively
provided by community-related experience”? So take .gay for example. Within certain countries, we know that their national laws prevent recognition of the gay community. So what practically speaking would establish “such awareness or recognition” alternatively
provided by community-related experience?
[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.
Jeff: I think this makes sense.
[3] The proposal to increase community participation or input in ICANN's engagement of CPE service provider/panellists is pending further discussion.
Jeff: This one will be subject to a separate topical e-mail as we said it would be taken to the list.
[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.
Jeff: This one will be subject to a separate topical e-mail as we said it would be taken to the list.
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.