Many thanks Jeff. This clarifies the issue with the word "global". Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 7:29 PM Jeff Neuman <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Anne,
Unfortunately, I was not on that call or I just missed that discussion. I did not realize that the issue was only with the word “global” as opposed to the external sources. I do agree that not all communities are global and therefore I agree with the objections to that word.
Sincerely,
Jeff
*From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 21, 2025 7:26 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language
Thanks Jeff. Again, I don't object to external recognition. In the document and in the text to which you responded, I objected to a requirement to show "*global* external recognition".
In the example raised by Justine with respect to languages on the call last week and in my follow-up example on that same call regarding the lakota language, it's clear that tthe indigenous tribes that speak lakota as a native language (of which there are 7 Sioux tribes) would not have "global" recognition of this language community. It's a big mistake for ICANN to exclude indigenous language communities that are not "globally" known. And there is plenty of evidence of commercial misappropriation of indigenous IP that could fuel a competing application.
I was on the last CPE call last week where objections were raised to the term "global" in the revised CPE scoring. Did I miss you on that call?
I'll quote again from our Sub Pro Final Report Implementation Guidance the following important sentence:
*"In fact, the references in the Implementation Guidance and the rationale for same make it clear that community recognition can actually be established with the use of experts."*
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:55 PM Jeff Neuman <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Anne,
Sorry to have missed you on the calls recently. But there were a bunch of things in the SubPro report that would have accounted for external recognition, including actual scoring from 1-4 of certain elements as opposed to a pass/fail like we have now. In addition, the combination of the ICANN Board decision on “content”, and the removal of the community being “pre-existing” for essentially five (5) years, it inadvertently did away with things like (a) an “understanding of the communities existence prior to September 2007”, and (b) in Criterion 2 which scored whether the “Name” of the community means the established name by which the community is commonly known *by others*; and (c) Nexus where to get a score of 3 (at the time) the essential aspect is that the applied-for string is commonly known *by others* as the identification / name of the community. Also look at IG 34.6:
*34.6: “In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, text regarding CPE Criterion 2-A Nexus includes guidance on scoring in relation to the criterion. Corresponding text included in the Evaluation Guidelines should be more specific and clear regarding scoring to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. The Working Group suggests the following text to include in the Evaluation Guidelines: “With respect to “Nexus”, for a score of 3, the essential aspect is that the applied-for string matches the name of the community. Where an exact match is not established but the applied-for string is established as commonly known by others as a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it will also be eligible for a score of 3. Where the applied-for string does not match the name of the community or is not a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it may score a 2 if it identifies the community – i.e. closely describes either the community or a reasonably understood boundary of the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. An applied-for string which identified the community but over-reaches substantially into a community will score a zero.” [emphasis added]*
And 34.8: *The Evaluation Guidelines regarding Criterion 2-B Uniqueness should make clear that evaluators should not be making a qualitative assessment of whether the a term is the most appropriate or descriptive term for a given community compared to other possible terms. Instead, they should be examining whether this is a term that the public in general associates with this community as opposed to another meaning. [Emphasis Added]*
So, it is not correct to state that recognition by others externally was not in the SubPro recommendations. Sure it was not called out as a separate element in the SubPro Report, but it was included in the scoring structure that was approved by SubPro. When you strip the scoring to a 1 or 0 (or essentially a pass/fail) instead of 0-4, as happened here, then inadverantly this recognition by others was left out and would create the weird situation of only requiring a community to be known by its members and not known to anyone else….which makes no sense and is not in line with the SubPro Recommendations OR the original 2007 GNSO policy.
Sincerely,
Jeff
*From:* Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:02 PM *To:* Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language
Thanks Jared.
I don't think there is anything in the Sub Pro Final Report that supports a requirement to demonstrate "global recognition" in connection with CPE scoring. In fact, the references in the Implementation Guidance and the rationale for same make it clear that community recognition can actually be established with the use of experts. Please double check the work done against the Topic 34 Implementation Guidance. In a cursory review of the Final Report, I did not see a reference to a requirement for establishing external recognition of the community. (I am not opposed to "external recognition" in theory, but "global" was never in our deliberations for CPE scoring as far as I know.) Further, we need to keep in mind that the policy encouraging Community applications and Community Priority was Affirmed by the WG.
"
*"Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.4: The Working Group supports leveraging experts with knowledge of the communities in question in determining if there is the requisite “awareness and recognition” among members of the community, especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable (e.g., where such recognition is prevented by national law).*
*Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.5: The Working Group emphasizes that the Evaluation Guidelines should not be interpreted for scoring purposes to mean that there can only be one entity to administer a community. The Evaluation Guidelines should further be clear that an organization that serves as a representative (as opposed to an administrator) of the community should be treated on equal footing with one that is administrative in nature. The Working Group believes that the Evaluation Guidelines should be clearer in this regard. "*
Thank you,
Anne
nne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 9:27 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As a reminder, following our discussion on Tuesday, please review the CPE draft and provide any comments on the google (redline) document linked below.
We will also begin work on updating based on the IRT’s feedback ahead of our next call on this topic on 29 April 2025. I understand there were also questions on CPE/Community Registration Policies on the call yesterday, and we will make sure any updates made in relation to Topic 9 will also be reflected in the CPE section, as needed/relevant.
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 10:40 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Updated CPE AGB Language
Dear IRT Members,
For our call today, 15 April 2025, at 18:00 UTC, here are the links to the updated CPE Language:
- Google doc: EXT_Topic 34_Community Priority Evaluation_Draft AGB Language_v3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16Hopw-yFMbU30...> - PDF: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>
Thank you and speak with you soon.
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.
