Subject: Responses to Questions re: Community Commitments vs. RVCs vs. CPE
From: Jared Erwin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:13:50 -0700

Dear IRT members, 

In follow-up to our discussion last week and in preparation for further discussion 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’d 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 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 examples of Community Commitments?

As set out by the SubPro Final Report, there are different types of gTLDs. A “community” gTLD string is a specific type of application,  and, if delegated, the gTLD is differentiated from a generic gTLD by having a Specification 12. Community commitments are required by every community applicant (regardless of contention status), which are enshrined in Spec 12. It is not necessarily 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.  

The draft AGB 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 distinctions between “community commitments”, RVCs, and the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) criteria.  When an applicant designates its application as “community” the applicant will  be asked to answer a series of additional questions that are specific to community gTLD applications and will be used to evaluate the application against the CPE criteria. These questions will cover the following areas:

·        Criterion 1: Community Establishment

·        Criterion 2: Nexus

·        Criterion 3: Registration Policies

·        Criterion 4: Community Endorsement

The “community commitments” that will be evaluated using the “RVC evaluation criteria” are the “community registration policies” that are  called for in Criterion 3 above. The current draft AGB PICs/RVCs text is proposing to evaluate these registrations policies related to Criterion 3 against the RVC criteria and NOT the information provided for Criteria 1, 2, and 4, because registration policies  are the only “commitments” that will result in binding additional commitments in the applicable RA. The other criteria require the applicant to demonstrate, at the time of application, the existence of a community, the string’s nexus to the community, and  endorsement of the community, but this type of information would not be expected to result in ongoing, enforceable commitments in the applicable RA. 

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 could look 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 community gTLD. 

ICANN is preparing guidelines and questions to assist applicants in their preparation of RVCs.

 

-- 

Jared Erwin

Director, New gTLD Program

Global Domains & Strategy

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

[email-masked]