Hi Anne, Well, “considerable” would be debatable – and the appeals mechanism creates such debate: which is good. The same number of entities might be seen as “considerable” or not: depending on the circumstances. I think we wanted to prevent that a club of 50 people calls themselves community. But if for example the 35,000 people of the city of Chur in Switzerland wanted to make sure THEY get “.chur” – they might apply as community priority applicant. And I think 35k should be “considerable” for a geo-community. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:26 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines Regarding the “considerable size” standard in the CPE evaluation, Alexander has raised an interesting point. I meant the non-citizen Kurd population of northern Syria rather than all worldwide Kurd populations when talking about a community with shared challenges. If we are to establish appeal processes and standards, “considerable” might require further definition. Would the estimated 400,000 non-citizen Kurds in Syria constitute a community of “considerable size” in comparison to the entire population of Kurds on the planet in all countries? Or do the Syrian Kurds fail the “Extension” test? Would it depend on exactly what TLD name they were seeking for the CPE Community? So could the Syrian Kurds get CPE for (dot)syriankurds or (dot)non-citizenkurds? And what if the Syrian government objected? Maybe no one likes this example, but the point is that the attached EIU Guidelines for scoring just say: “Is the community of considerable size?” What does the word, “considerable”, mean to panelists who are subject to being overturned on appeal and who have no precedents to follow? Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> >; Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> ) <jamie@dotgay.com <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> > Subject: Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines 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 <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> 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.