- To: <e-gtld-string@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Nexus Criteria
- From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:30:52 -0400
From Guidebook: Criteria # 2
A. Nexus (3 points)
To score 3 points: "The string matches the name of the community"
To score 2 points: "The string identifies the community"
The dictionary definition of the word "matches" is "to be equal to". Thus,
to score a 3, the string "must be equal" to the name of the community.
There are 2 dictionary definitions for the word "identify" as follows 1) to
cause to be identical and 2) to conceive as united (as in spirit, outlook,
To "cause to be identical" is the same as "to be equal to". For example, if
the string "causes to be identical" to the name of the community, then this
will score 3 points i.e. "identify" means "matches" in the context of this
definition of the word "identify". Put simply, the criteria to score 2
points is the same as to score 3 points when using "to cause to be
identical" as the definition of the word "identify".
This defaults us to the second definition of the word "identify" of: to
conceive as united (as in spirit, outlook, or principle). This definition
infers a relationship. For example, People identify Abbott *with* Costello.
Or, per the dictionary example, "groups that are identified *with*
conservation". In the context of this definition, the word "identify" makes
reasonable sense vs. the word "matches" to warrant the loss of 1 point, or
33% of the Nexus criteria. Put simply, "to conceive as united" is not the
same as "to be equal to" thus the loss of 1 point in the context of the
Here's my point: The guidebook needs to be crisp where it can be. Being
crisp and clear assists the goal of being objective rather than subjective.
Certainly community criteria is a place we want to strive for objectivity
which I can appreciate is elusive. I am not asking for definitions. But I
am requesting for crucial words to be used in the context of their intended
meaning and definition. The intention can't be for the criteria to be the
same for 3 points and 2 points.
The simple remedy is to change "The string identifies the community" to "The
string identifies WITH the community". This change allows people to
interpret the proper meaning and definition in the context of the criteria
and understand the difference of how to score 3 points vs. 2 points for
By the way, as long as I am on the subject, we've really now taken the
concept of "nexus" to a whole new level as a method to implement. Nexus
simply means a connection. We've taken this to the very upper limits
requiring both "uniqueness" and "equal to" in order to achieve the maximum 4
points and a minimum of "equal to" to achieve 3 points. From there, there
is but one option remaining to achieve a "connection", worth 2 points. This
last option to achieve a connection can't be "to cause to be identical"
otherwise we're going to have to change the heading of this criterion
because certainly something less than unique, equal to, or identical can
establish a connection, otherwise known as nexus. And just practically
speaking, why would any applicant filing for a string able to meet the
criteria of "uniqueness" file as a community application? If the string is
so unique, contention will not be an issue and concern for contention is the
only reason any applicant would file under the community umbrella. Thus,
the 1 point for uniqueness will likely never be utilized which means,
practically speaking, an applicant must score 13 out of 15 and if not
achieving "equal to" for nexus can only at best achieve 13 by making a
perfect score on all of the other community criteria combined. So, you can
see why but a single word of "identifies" becomes so crucial. I don't know
if this is all by design. I do understand full well the balance. But this
must be "identifies with" to establish the minimum level of connection, all
else remaining equal, because otherwise it is not nexus criteria any more
but something different being labeled as nexus.