HI Jared. I went through the scoring process, although when I asked to make a copy of the Excel Sheet, the doc said I did not have access. So I emailed the attached pdf to myself. Here is where I am struggling - There are several organizations indicating their support and I was inclined to recite that as Majority Support with Minor Opposition but the applicant has described its GIG Community as having 150 Million members. With a "community" that large, it's hard to score the applicant as having strong Community Establishment numbers and Majority Support even though several organizations have expressed support. Nothing suggests that all these organizing bodies expressing support have even close to 150 Million members. I thought the Nexus and the Registration Policies deserved the maximum high scores but I struggled with Community Establishment and Community Endorsement. These two scoring boxes appear interdependent when you use the term "Majority" and "Minority" in relation to the endorsement feature. If you have a very large community of 150 Million, how realistic is it to provide evidence of a "Majority" Endorsement. I think we may need to find an alternative to "Majority" endorsement. "Substantial" Endorsement with "Insubstantial" Opposition? For me, the above issue would have caused this application to fail. Failure would be based on the use of the term "Majority" in the Scoring system. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 2:15 PM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thanks for the question. Your assumption is correct, references to “community as defined” means “community as defined by the applicant in their responses to the application questions”. We can try to be clearer about this in our questions/criteria. But, for example, question 20 asks for the applicant to provide the name of their community, and question 21 asks for the applicant to spell out the mission and purpose. Additionally, question 24 and 25 ask about how the community is organized, this also plays into the definition. So, the application as a whole is the “definition” of the community. But again, we can try to be clearer and more consistent with this “as defined” language.
And yes, as for the “longer name”, we will update the criteria/explanations to account for that. I think there was a suggestion to say “alternate name/form” instead of “short form”—that seems to make sense.
I hope that helps.
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, December 2, 2024 at 17:05 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" < subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] RE: CPE Stress Test Materials
Jared,
Regarding the Overview, a couple of very general questions/comments:
Re: Nexus scoring - score is based on the proximity match of the proposed TLD to the "name of the community". Who determines what the name of the community is? There is a later reference in "Endorsement" to the "community as defined" and points awarded for the endorsement of the "community as defined" - presumably by the applicant? Can we be clearer as to what definition applies in relation to both Nexus and Endorsement? (Scoring depends on this.)
Separately, as you know, I think that as to Nexus, the TLD name could be longer, not just shorter or an abbreviation but still be entitled to get maximum points. The example I gave on the call was for the community of wizards to propose (dot)WIZARDRY. One reason they might want to do this is to avoid the new rule on singulars and plurals by NOT applying for (dot)WIZARD or (dot)WIZARDS. Again, is the "community name" for Nexus purposes determined by a Community Priority Panel or by the applicant? If by the applicant, then the Criteria Overview should specify "community as defined by the applicant" in both the Nexus and the Endorsement sections.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:43 PM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jim,
The deadline is tomorrow, 3 December. We plan to discuss results on Thursday, 5 December.
Thank you
Jared
On Dec 2, 2024, at 13:08, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
Hey Jared and all – when is the deadline for completing this?
Thanks
Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
+1 202-285-3699
*From:* Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2024 5:35 PM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] CPE Stress Test Materials
Dear IRT Members,
As discussed at our session at ICANN81, we would like to proceed with a “stress test” of the CPE criteria. To that end, I’m providing some materials (also found on the wiki page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=371327335>), which we will discuss at our call on Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 05:00-07:00 UTC.
- Criteria Overview (pdf) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/371327335/EXT_Topic%2034_%2...> - Criteria Overview (google sheet) [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1e4XwJ0zswIdxn...> - Stress Test Materials (pdf) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/371327335/CPE%20Stress%20Te...> - Stress Test Materials (xlsx) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/371327335/CPE%20Stress%20Te...> (note: be sure to expand the rows to see the full fields/text) - Stress Test Materials (google sheet) [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bQRN17Bm2...> (note: this is in “viewer mode” as IRT members should make their own copy for scoring purposes)
On our call, we will go through the instructions/materials and I can answer any initial questions you may have. Time permitting, we will also walk through the criteria.
Thank you and speak to you later this evening LA time.
Best,
Jared
--
Jared Erwin
Director, New gTLD Program
Global Domains & Strategy
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
jared.erwin@icann.org
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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.