User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.70.23021201 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:13:50 -0700 Subject: Responses to Questions re: Community Commitments vs. RVCs vs. CPE From: Jared Erwin To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Responses to Questions re: Community Commitments vs. RVCs vs. CPE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3820469764_869241230" MIME-Version: 1.0 --B_3820469764_869241230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IRT members,=20 =20 In follow-up to our discussion last week and in preparation for further dis= cussion in a few hours, I have prepared some responses to the questions that= came up last week regarding community commitments as it relates to CPE. I=E2=80= =99d like to propose that we spend maybe only the first 10 minutes of our dis= cussion on this and then move to a review of the criteria. =20 Thank you, =20 Jared =20 Question(s) from IRT: What is the difference between an RVC and a Community= Commitment? Do an applicant's Community Commitments have to be an RVC? Are = all Community Commitments evaluated in the same way as RVCs? What are examp= les of Community Commitments? =20 As set out by the SubPro Final Report, there are different types of gTLDs. = A =E2=80=9Ccommunity=E2=80=9D gTLD string is a specific type of application, and, if de= legated, the gTLD is differentiated from a generic gTLD by having a Specific= ation 12. Community commitments are required by every community applicant (r= egardless of contention status), which are enshrined in Spec 12. It is not n= ecessarily true that they would be part of Spec 11 (for RVCs) but could be = depending on the applicant's choice and/or any objections/GAC advice. =20 =20 The draft AGB text on PICs/RVCs notes that the community registration polic= ies must be evaluated and meet the same criteria as those that will be appl= ied to the evaluation of RVCs. However, there are some key distinctions betw= een =E2=80=9Ccommunity commitments=E2=80=9D, RVCs, and the Community Priority Evaluation= (CPE) criteria. When an applicant designates its application as =E2=80=9Ccommuni= ty=E2=80=9D the applicant will be asked to answer a series of additional question= s that are specific to community gTLD applications and will be used to evalu= ate the application against the CPE criteria. These questions will cover the= following areas: =C2=B7 Criterion 1: Community Establishment =C2=B7 Criterion 2: Nexus =C2=B7 Criterion 3: Registration Policies =C2=B7 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement =20 The =E2=80=9Ccommunity commitments=E2=80=9D that will be evaluated using the =E2=80=9CRVC eva= luation criteria=E2=80=9D are the =E2=80=9Ccommunity registration policies=E2=80=9D that are = called for in Criterion 3 above. The current draft AGB PICs/RVCs text is pro= posing to evaluate these registrations policies related to Criterion 3 again= st the RVC criteria and NOT the information provided for Criteria 1, 2, and = 4, because registration policies are the only =E2=80=9Ccommitments=E2=80=9D that will r= esult in binding additional commitments in the applicable RA. The other crit= eria require the applicant to demonstrate, at the time of application, the e= xistence of a community, the string=E2=80=99s nexus to the community, and endorse= ment of the community, but this type of information would not be expected to= result in ongoing, enforceable commitments in the applicable RA.=20 =20 To summarize, registration policies proposed by applicants for community gT= LDs will be evaluated using the criteria developed for the evaluation of re= gistry voluntary commitments. These community registration policies could lo= ok very similar to commitments proposed as RVCs by non-community applicants,= but they will live in Specification 12 because the applied-for gTLD is a co= mmunity gTLD.=20 =20 ICANN is preparing guidelines and questions to assist applicants in their p= reparation of RVCs. =20 =20 =20 --=20 =20 Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org=20 =20 =20 =20 --B_3820469764_869241230 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear IRT members,

 

In follow-up to our discussion last week and in prep= aration for further discussion in a few hours, I have prepared some respons= es to the questions that came up last week regarding community commitments = as it relates to CPE. I=E2=80=99d like to propose that we spend maybe only the first 10 minutes of our discussion on= this and then move to a review of the criteria.

 

Thank you,

 

Jared

 

Question(s) from IRT: What is the di= fference between an RVC and a Community Commitment? Do an applicant's Commu= nity Commitments have to be an RVC? Are all Community Commitments evaluated in the same way as RVCs? What are examples of Commun= ity Commitments?

 =

As set out b= y the SubPro Final Report, there are different types of gTLDs. A =E2=80=9Cc= ommunity=E2=80=9D gTLD string is a specific type of application, and, if delegated, the gTLD is differentiated from a generic gTLD by havin= g a Specification 12. Community commitments are required by every community= applicant (regardless of contention status), which are enshrined in Spec 1= 2. It is not necessarily true that they would be part of Spec 11 (for RVCs) but could be depending on the app= licant's choice and/or any objections/GAC advice.  

 =

The draft AG= B text on PICs/RVCs notes that the community registration policies must be = evaluated and meet the same criteria as those that will be applied to the evaluation of RVCs. However, there are some key dis= tinctions between =E2=80=9Ccommunity commitments=E2=80=9D, RVCs, and the Co= mmunity Priority Evaluation (CPE) criteria.  When an applicant designa= tes its application as =E2=80=9Ccommunity=E2=80=9D the applicant will be asked to answer a series of additional questions that are specific to c= ommunity gTLD applications and will be used to evaluate the application aga= inst the CPE criteria. These questions will cover the following areas:

=C2=B7    &nbs= p;    Criterion 1: Community Establis= hment

=C2=B7    &nbs= p;    Criterion 2: Nexus

=C2=B7    &nbs= p;    Criterion 3: Registration Polic= ies

=C2=B7    &nbs= p;    Criterion 4: Community Endorsem= ent

 =

The =E2=80= =9Ccommunity commitments=E2=80=9D that will be evaluated using the =E2=80= =9CRVC evaluation criteria=E2=80=9D are the =E2=80=9Ccommunity registration= policies=E2=80=9D that are called for in Criterion 3 above. The current draft AGB PICs/RVCs text is p= roposing to evaluate these registrations policies related to Criterion 3 ag= ainst the RVC criteria and NOT the information provided for Criteria 1, 2, = and 4, because registration policies are the only =E2=80=9Ccommitments=E2=80=9D that will result in binding add= itional commitments in the applicable RA. The other criteria require the ap= plicant to demonstrate, at the time of application, the existence of a comm= unity, the string=E2=80=99s nexus to the community, and endorsement of the community, but this type of information would not be ex= pected to result in ongoing, enforceable commitments in the applicable RA.&= nbsp;

 =

To summarize= , registration policies proposed by applicants for community gTLDs will be = evaluated using the criteria developed for the evaluation of registry voluntary commitments. These community registration policies c= ould look very similar to commitments proposed as RVCs by non-community app= licants, but they will live in Specification 12 because the applied-for gTL= D is a community gTLD. =

 =

ICANN is pre= paring guidelines and questions to assist applicants in their preparation o= f RVCs.

 =

 =

 

-- 

 =

Jared Erwin<= /o:p>

Director, New gTL= D Program

Global Domains &a= mp; Strategy

Internet Corporat= ion for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

jared.erwin@icann.org=

 

 =

 

--B_3820469764_869241230--