Kathy, it's a misrepresentation to say that I said Sub Pro recommended provisions that encourage gaming. I have simply stated that there are linguistic communities that are small and that do not have global recognition (in particular linguistic communities) These were definitely mentioned specifically in the Final Report. I also said that concerns that arise around whether the applicant is legitimately representing the community can be challenged by (1) letters to the CPE evaluator and (2) filing of a Community Objection. Small linguistic communities should not be disadvantaged by your comments and this was not intended at all by Sub Pro. You are well aware of this because of previous correspondence but I'll paste the language again (that you left out) for the larger IRT: 1. *In support of providing evidence related to organization, the applicant should provide* 1. *An overview of the community structure, as applicable, and whether it is formal or informal:* 1. *Formal communities typically have well-defined organizational structures and membership lists, such as economic communities or coalitions of nonprofit organizations.* 2. *Non-formal communities may consist of self-identified members, or individuals, such as those in linguistic or cultural groups.* If the goal of your comments is to take away the word "self-identified" from the above highlighted language, that is inconsistent with the Sub Pro Final Report. The report also says *Implementation Guidance 34.2: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, the following text is included under definitions for Criterion 1-A Delineation, “ “Delineation” relates to the membership of a community, where a clear and straight-forward membership definition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low.” The corresponding Evalution Guidelines from the 2012 round include a non-exhaustive list of “elements of straight-forward member definitions.” This list should continue to include elements applicable to economic communities with a formal membership structure, but it should also include elements applicable to communities that are not economic in nature, including linguistic and cultural communities, that have clear and straight-forward membership definition. TTThe term “member” in this context should be interpreted broadly enough to include communities that do not have “card carrying” members. Further, the Evaluation Guidelines should include provisions that allow communities which are not economic in nature (and which therefore may not have clear and straight-forward membership structure) with an equal opportunity to score a full 2 points on the Delineation Criterion, as well as an opportunity to score a single point if some but not all elements of this criterion are met. * If you have specific language change proposals that you think will accomplish your goal without removing the significance of "self-identified" non-formal communities, then I'm sure everyone is willing to consider those changes. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:26 PM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Hi All,

In 2012, the standards were too high and virtually nothing qualified as communities; in 2025, especially with this last round of edits (still red in our sheets), we have lowered the standard for community to only what an applicant believes the community to be. This community could be only a subset, a minority, or a fringe of the larger community associated with the name/gTLD, and that creates a real problem.

As others have shared, we now the CPE process to gaming, and I add, abuse by factions and small minorities trying to take the gTLD string of their larger community. Anne says this is what the SubPro recommended, but I disagree. I was in SubPro WG too and have gone back to our recommendations. *The need to have external confirmation, facts and size of the majority of the group is not a matter for the applicant alone to determine.** We have always sought external validation in SubPro's Final Report - and the version of the CPE Scoring we put out for the public to review. Now we change without balance or protectoin.* From the SubPro Final Report: ==> "Implementation Guidance 34.4: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, in order to succeed in a Community Priority Evaluation, Criterion 1-A stated that a community should have the requisite “awareness and recognition” among its members (“Delineation”). *The Working Group recommends that this criterion must take into consideration the views of the relevant community-related experts,* especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable (eg., where such recognition is prevented by national law)." [bold: "community-related experts" is an outside check"]

==> "Implementation Guidance 34.5: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, the following text is included under Definitions for CPE Criterion 1-A Delineation: “

*“Organized” implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to the community, with documented evidence of community activities.”* The interpretation in the Evaluation Guidelines of the term “mainly” should make clear that it is possible for more than one entity to administer and/or represent a community. The Guidelines should further make clear that an organization that represents a community should be treated on equal footing with one that administers a community." ["mainly dedicated to the community" implies the larger community associated with the name, not just a subpart or fraction]

==> "Implementation Guidance 34.6: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, text regarding CPE Criterion 2-A Nexus includes guidance on scoring in relation to the criterion. Corresponding text included in the Evaluation Guidelines should be more specific and clear regarding scoring to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. The Working Group suggests the following text to include in the Evaluation Guidelines: “With respect to “Nexus”, for a score of 3, the essential aspect is that the applied-for string matches the name of the community.

*Where an exact match is not established but the applied-for string is established as commonly known by * *others as a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, *it will also be eligible for a score of 3. Where the applied-for string does not match the name of the community or is not a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it may score a 2 if it identifies the community – i.e. closely describes either the community or a reasonably understood boundary of the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. An applied-for string which identified the community but over-reaches substantially into a community will score a zero.” ["known by others" refers to those outside the applicant's group who understand and use the term - a larger community, if it exists, that is know and recognized].

**** *We deleted footnote 28 of our AGB section with a critical outside check, namely: ==> "Majority" and "Minority" are defined according to the size of the identified community by the applicant. *The burden is on the applicant to define its community with clear estimates of the size of the entire community and any sub-categories/groups within the community. *A majority of the overall community may be determined by, but not restricted to, considerations such as headcount or the geographic reach of the organizations."* [These are facts that can be independently ascertained, checked and confirmed. The burden is on the applicant (in our original AGB draft) to prove that they represent the larger community associated with the name/TLD. That seems fair. *

*But now, with our changes on p. 19, we seem to accept any response the applicant gives us - even a blatant misrepresentation that they represent the "majority," when in fact, they represent a minority or small faction of the larger group. Majority and minority, in most cases, can and should be independently checked by the CPE evaluators -- and the provision should be removed telling us to trust the sizes given by the applicant. Trust, but verify. *

*Overall, applicants are not the sole arbiters of their communities - we are giving them priority for a larger public interest reason, not a self-interest reason. *

*CONCLUSION: Most commenters agreed with these original footnotes - and never expected us to remove these external checks that are part of the CPE. To not consider the larger Community associated with the community term/TLD is to allow factions and minorities to run off with the larger Community's name. This will create no end of trouble, no end of cost, and no end of bad publicity for ICANN. The wholesale changes go far beyond anything the SubPro WG or the ICANN Community approved. *

Best, Kathy

On 5/5/2025 11:09 AM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:

As discussed in our zoom and subsequent emails, small linguistic communities of indigenous peoples all over the world do NOT have "global" recognition. Global recognition was not part of the Sub Pro Policy work on CPE. Validation for linguistic communities is expressly referred to in the Sub Pro work as is the ability to establish recognition via experts. I suggest that all IRT participants check that language in Topic 34 of the Sub Pro Final Report again if this is going to be debated in our upcoming call.

The "Larger communities using the same name" you invoke clearly have two options: (1) Send letters of opposition to the CPE evaluators and (2) file community objections. Legitimate small linguistic communities have NO options and should not be penalized because their recognition does not qualify as "global". External recognition in the scoring is fine. There is no requirement that this recognition be global or "wider" in the Sub Pro Final Report. The Final Report supports even "expert" recognition.

I agree that Elaine's .COIN family example should be provided to the evaluators as an example of something that should not qualify.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 7:33 PM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi All,

I've put together a spreadsheet for CPE scoring. I offer it to you (attached) to test groups that you think *should pass* and those you think *should not pass. * (Quick note: some scoring skips numbers.)

I share Elaine Pruis' email of February and borrow her example of the Coin Family in my spreadsheet as a test.

I am concerned that our newest version of the scoring puts the community scoring almost entirely in the evaluation of the community itself and not the larger world. Is that fair to larger communities using the same name? Won't there be gaming?

Best, Kathy

*----------------------------------*

*From: *"Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"Pruis, Elaine" <epruis@verisign.com> <epruis@verisign.com> *Date: *Friday, 7 February 2025 at 23:51 *To: *Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org> <michael.karakash@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@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

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.