Hi Jared, I deeply appreciate the close review and clarifications in the section. But to your idea that "Established Presence" under Criterion 1 is our "external recognition," I would have to disagree. Again, my concern is a faction or even a dissenting group trying to appropriate the clearly-associated name of a larger group. Even as now defined in Established Presence, external recognition and external agreement /are two different things. / I can recognize that Jews for Jesus is a recognized group, and even that they call themselves Jewish (which gives the point for for Established Presence]. But I can't agree that .JEWS by Jews for Jesus would be fair since the organization is not the Established Presence of the much larger community clearly associate with the gTLD string. Can we tweak this just a bit more -- to get to the goal of real external recognition /and agreement /that you offered in your email. I'll offer some specific edit ideas in my next email. Best and tx, Kathy On 5/13/2025 3:11 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for the input. Internal recognition is covered by the sub-criterion “Awareness” under Criterion 1, and external recognition is covered by “Established Presence”, also under Criterion 1. Additionally, we have implemented guidelines under Endorsement that ask the panel to look at both internal and external support, where this may be relevant. An applicant for a TLD which is a word that seems to cover a wide swath of groups/individuals but is being used in a narrow way would likely have trouble gaining points in established presence, nexus, and community endorsement.
I also note your comments on the document related to the use of community experts to look at how awareness or other criteria might be measured in different communities. We have not removed this, but instead have highlighted it on page 6 of the document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q3jkjyTkhwU6wMzTq55oIEc5p-w6vVy5p1v3ywOo...>, noting that:
“Additionally, as part of this [limited] research, the panel may consult with relevant community-related experts to gain insight into highly specialized or localized communities.”
We could potentially generalize this a bit more to note that the panel can consult with relevant community-related experts to better understand the community identified by the applicant.
Appreciate any other input you may have.
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 09:42 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Anne A-S ICANN 2023 <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: Fwd: Standing Rock Resolution banning Lakota Language Consortium
And I continue to be deeply concerned that we are changing the rules internally from what a) what the SubPro WG negotiated (with a special balance of internal identification and external recognition) and b) what we put out for public notice to the ICANN Community (with the balance included).
There is a Lakota language foundation that you have told us, Anne, is a) not affiliated with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that regard this language as their own, and b) not even allowed on tribal lands.
Anne, across the globe, there are similar examples: small groups of language speakers and much larger groups of peoples identified with the same word as language speakers, and also as the ethnic & religious group affiliated with the community name. (An example I shared in the meeting: .hebrew being applied for by Christian biblical scholars when there is a much larger group associated with the Hebrew language (millions speak it every day) and also identifying with this biblical religious term.) The potential for gaming and misuse is huge if we do not get the balance right -- as the SubPro intended - and look both at internal and external recognition.
To your concerns, Anne, no one is saying that self-identification is not important -- *and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (and similar ethnic/religious/linguistic groups) has much more: It has a long history associated with this language and external recognition that the Tribal members are the heirs to the language, descendants of its speakers, and committed to its teaching through their work, schools, and research. *
/What you shared -- the resolution -- is important however it is used. The CPE Panel should evaluate it closely if the Tribe applies for the .lakota gTLD, and if it does not./
/But we cannot write rules assuming one side has applied for the gTLD as a Community and another has not; we must assume all possibilities. That is why accepting the balances the SubPro WG recommended for the CPE Panel is so important - internal and external -- before we, as the ICANN Community, mark this new gTLD as a community and give it rights and privileges associated with that finding./
/Best, Kathy/
On 5/8/2025 11:12 AM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared and to the full IRT,
Just to explain further why I continue to express concern regarding indigenous language communities in the Community Priority Evaluation process, please see an example in the public Tribal Resolution of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe linked below.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22048660-standing-rock-banishment-re... <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22048660-standing-rock-banishment-re...>
This concern is not an isolated incident and many tribes have similar issues. These issues are not limited to the U.S. Please see a brief excerpt from the UNESCO Declaration on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) here:
24. Proclaims the period 2022–2032 as the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, to draw attention to the critical loss of indigenous languages and the urgent need to preserve, revitalize and promote indigenous languages and to take urgent steps at the national and international levels, and invites the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to serve as the lead agency for the International Decade, in collaboration with the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the Secretariat, and other relevant agencies, within existing resources;
Fortunately, our CPE policy work takes account of these non-formal linguistic communities who self-identify. Of course external recognition makes sense as long as such recognition can be localized in the case of indigenous language communities and can be provided by experts as contemplated by the Final Report. The examples in the draft presented by Jared on the last CPE call are helpful. We may or may not see applications from these communities in the 2026 round but the guidelines we are implementing now are likely to stay in place for a very long time.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-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.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-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.