Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications
Dear IRT Members, Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications: * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...> For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant. This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025. Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>
Jared, I believe the CPE sections should mention the possibility of specifying alternate strings as one way to handle contention the applicant might take into account. Rubens
Em 20 de dez. de 2024, à(s) 16:06, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT Members,
Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications:
Draft AGB Section (Google Doc) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet) <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...>
For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round:https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant.
This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion.
We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025.
Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year.
Best Jared
--
Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto: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.
Thanks, Rubens. Yes, that makes sense; we can add a reference to that option/the relevant section. Thank you Jared From: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 11:19 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Jared, I believe the CPE sections should mention the possibility of specifying alternate strings as one way to handle contention the applicant might take into account. Rubens Em 20 de dez. de 2024, à(s) 16:06, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu: Dear IRT Members, Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications: * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc) [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x...> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet) [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJr...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...> For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round:https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/gu...>. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant. This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025. Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Dear IRT Members, As mentioned on our call today (9 Jan 2025 @ 19:00 UTC), you received the draft AGB section for CPE on 20 December 2024 for your review. I’m sending here again as a reminder (links below). We plan to discuss the section on our call on 23 January 2025. We would kindly appreciate for you to review and provide all comments/feedback ahead of that call so that we can discuss and then move to finalizing the section ahead of Public Comment #4. This is noted below, but I’ll put here again to reiterate that the AGB section is a culmination of last few months of discussions on the criteria. Some highlights of the changes that you’ll find in this version are: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. Otherwise, the AGB section includes more general information related to the CPE process. Please let me know of any questions. Thank you Jared From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 11:06 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Dear IRT Members, Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications: * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...> For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant. This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025. Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>
Dear IRT Members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, I noted I would send out the CPE materials again. As discussed, we would appreciate your final review of this section, including the application questions. Ideally, we have any comments/feedback by the end of next week (31 Jan). We plan to come back to the IRT in the next couple of weeks on the issue related to registration policies. * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...> Thank you, Jared From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 17:35 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Dear IRT Members, As mentioned on our call today (9 Jan 2025 @ 19:00 UTC), you received the draft AGB section for CPE on 20 December 2024 for your review. I’m sending here again as a reminder (links below). We plan to discuss the section on our call on 23 January 2025. We would kindly appreciate for you to review and provide all comments/feedback ahead of that call so that we can discuss and then move to finalizing the section ahead of Public Comment #4. This is noted below, but I’ll put here again to reiterate that the AGB section is a culmination of last few months of discussions on the criteria. Some highlights of the changes that you’ll find in this version are: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. Otherwise, the AGB section includes more general information related to the CPE process. Please let me know of any questions. Thank you Jared From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 11:06 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Dear IRT Members, Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications: * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...> For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant. This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025. Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>
participants (2)
-
Jared Erwin -
Rubens Kuhl