Thanks for the insight Lars, I hope we will have time to discuss in Seattle as I think this topic impacts a broad swath of the community and bringing these types scenarios to light may help set proper expectations for what CPE could look like. Elaine From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 12:34 AM To: Elaine Pruis <epruis@verisign.com>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you, Elaine, for your thoughtful contribution. For context, here is the existing definition, per Based RA (p. 102): “A string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations, or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations, or things from those of others.” I think you make a valid point, but I am not sure that, under the current set of policy recommendations and implementation guidance, anything could be done to prevent the Coin klan from scoring highly in your described scenario. Determining the ‘right/best/most deserving’ community for a particular gTLD string will always remain somewhat subjective. Some may believe that the Coin klan constitutes a community and see no issue with your example. Others may argue that all those who use coins—real or virtual—are the true coin community and that the coin family should not be able to obtain the TLD via CPE. Alternatively, as you suggest, some may feel the term is ‘too generic’ and should not even be permitted as a community TLD. This reflects the broader challenge we have encountered when considering CPE: everyone knows what kind of community in their view should pass CPE. Because this knowledge is inherently subjective, we have so far struggled to establish objective criteria to determine which community applicant deserves a generic string over all other applicants. Perhaps we can dedicate some time to this topic during one of the Seattle IRT sessions and explore the issue further. Such a discussion may also help inform public comment input, which will be due about a month after ICANN83. Thank you, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue. Very best, Lars From: "Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis@verisign.com> Date: Friday, 7 February 2025 at 23:51 To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Hello IRT, I had hoped to discuss this on a call, but have been asked to share to the list for discussion. Please read and provide feedback as CPE is about to go to public comment. There is a scenario where Community Priority could be gained by a very small group for a super generic string, which I don’t think aligns with the intention of providing this great advantage of avoiding ICANN auction via designation as a community. For ease of reference, here is the overall scoring section: 1.6.1 Criterion 1: Community Establishment This criterion relates to the community as explicitly identified according to statements in the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core questions in evaluating the application against this criterion: Organization (2 points): Is the applicant the organizing body for the community? If not, is the applicant able to demonstrate that the community is organized, with an organizing body(ies) relevant to the community or to each member category of the community? Engagement (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate that there is active engagement with community members? Awareness (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate awareness among and between community members of the identified community? Longevity (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate the longevity of the community's pursuits, showing that they are enduring and sustainable rather than temporary? Here is the scenario. The application is for .coin, and the applicant represents a multigenerational family with the surname “Coin” . The applicant Mr. Coin Sr. has created an LLC and that LLC “Coin TLD” is the organizing body for the community “as defined by the applicant” (“My family, the Coin Klan is a community” says Mr. Coin). Mr. Coin Sr. can claim the family including Ms. Coin, Mr. Coin Jr. and Sister Coin have appointed him and the LLC as the organizing body for their Coin community. They are actively engaged with each other, even on a daily basis (“Dad can I have a ride to the movies?” says Sister Coin. They then spend lots of time in the car interacting. They text each other every day). Clearly the entire family is fully aware of their community and know they are part of the Coin Klan. The Coin community was established generations ago and since Mr. Coin Jr. has two kids and is expecting a baby soon, they can demonstrate longevity, sustainability, and prove they are not merely a temporary Klan. The opportunity for the Coin Klan to win .coin over any other applicant is real, but the delegation of a super generic string to a community such as The Coin Klan over any other applicant seems counter to the spirit of the recommendation. Can we add some language that prevents this sort of opportunism? Should there be extra scrutiny or higher points required when a super generic string is in play? Elaine From: Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org> Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 8:31 AM To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear IRT Members, I’m sending here the updated draft AGB language for Topic 34: Community Applications (Community Priority Evaluation). Link to Google Doc Link to Clean PDF Link to Redline PDF This version includes the following changes/updates: Responses to IRT comments and updates based on comments, where applicable Quite a few editorial edits Clarification in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 regarding requirements for community applicants as it relates to community information and Community Registration Policies Several clarifications to the guidelines for each of the criteria, including on the required supporting documentation Clarification on the community endorsement scoring as to how an applicant would achieve points As noted previously, ICANN recommends that we push forward with Public Comment and that ICANN continue to review the CPE language once comments on the topic have been received. We would kindly request any further on anything the IRT believes does not meet the intent of a recommendation to be provided to us as soon as possible but no later than 13 February 2025. Thank you! Best, Michael