Sure, Jeff. To begin with, the Criterion 1-A refers to a requisite "awareness *and* recognition" *among its members*, and I need to point out that this *duality* is what still concerns me as being an unreasonable barrier. My reading of the way the EIU panelist(s) evaluated this criterion is that the applicant must have been able to provide evidence of *both* awareness and recognition among its members; simply "proving" one or the other was not enough to score a point. In my opinion, the point that Jamie made on reciprocal recognition (see below) applies equally to the reciprocal awareness requirement. "*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*. ........* if circumstances prevent any portion of the community members from complying with the “reciprocal recognition” requirement*..." In other words, the circumstances preventing community members from complying with the recognition requirement will also impair the measurement of awareness among community members. The recognition required could be established by way of requiring consideration of the views of the relevant community-related experts but what about the requisite awareness? There could be other circumstances where measuring awareness might present difficulties, *depending on how an applicant described its community members*. Leaving aside the element of recognition, as an eg. for an application for a TLD that is targeted at or for the benefit of infants, it is clear that infants are not likely to present awareness of a "community of infants", such awareness would be more ably reflected by awareness of parents or legal guardians who may not strictly be members of the community. And even if parents or legal guardians were written up as part of the community, would the lack of awareness by the infants themselves prejudice the evaluation for the requisite awareness since the infants might be seen as making up a large proportion of the community? This could be remedied by requiring consideration of the views of the relevant community-related experts, or it may not, we simply can't establish certainty of that. The bottom line is, and referring back to my first sentence, I was attempting to address the "awareness and recognition" duality concern by proposing something that touches on the awareness element. I would welcome an alternate approach to how the proposed Implementation Guidance can be framed to address both angles of recognition and awareness. Hope that makes sense. Many thanks, Justine On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 22:26, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

Justine.

Thanks for this note. Can you explain in practical terms what “or difficult to measure (eg., where awareness is more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves strictly as members of the community)” means.

The reason we inserted the previous portion (“where such recognition is prevented by national law”) is because it got a good level of support and was something that was easily obtainable. If the recognition of certain communities are prevented by national law, that is something that can be shown (and proven). But awareness “being more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves as strictly as members of the community” is not something that provides help to the IRT to implement. In addition, other than the ALAC comment, I do not see in my notes that this later part had significant support to include.

If we do include it, we need to be more concrete about that second part and we need to have people weigh in supporting the addition.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 10:58 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Final Report - DUE Tuesday 15 December

Apologies for the delay in responding to this email. I have a couple of suggestions on the amendments to 34. Community Applications at pages 161-162.

1. Implementation Guidance 34.2: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, in order to succeed in a Community Priority Evaluation, Criterion 1-A stated that a community should have the requisite "awareness and recognition" among its members ("Delineation"). The Working Group recommends that this criterion must take in consideration the views of the relevant community-related experts, especially in cases where recognition or awareness of the community is not measurable (eg., where such recognition is prevented by national law) or difficult to measure (eg., where awareness is more adequately reflected by parties who may not be or view themselves strictly as members of the community).

*(I had mentioned on this in my email of 9 Dec to the "REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December" thread)*

2. Given that reference to "members" first appears in the above Implementation Guidance 34.2, perhaps we should reverse the order of Implementation Guidance 34.4 with Implementation Guidance 34.2, since Implementation Guidance 34.4 (now) provides for the interpretation of "members". In short, slot what is currently IG 34.2 (see above) as IG 34.4 and IG 34.4 as IG 34.2 instead.

Thank you for your consideration of the above suggestions.

Justine

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 03:11, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:

Dear WG Members,

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 on the following:

- *A**ctions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings* held on 7 December and 12 December 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG. - Actions stemming from the Co-Chairs Topical Emails 4-9 (see the Log for links to the relevant emails). - Additional updates to Topic 34: Community Applications, based on email exchanges on the mailing list. - In the previous (7 December) redline, staff made an edit in error to the text of Recommendation 25.5. This has now been reverted to the text as written in the draft Final Report (see pages 113 and 114). Apologies for any confusion.

*Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to 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 *Tuesday 15 December.*

Kind regards,

Emily

Emily Barabas

Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

www.icann.org

_______________________________________________ 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.