Re: [gtld-council] Additional applicant criteria relating to communities associated with a string

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

On No 1, I has this comment, but I was not sure to comment, since I thought
the 'technical' capability is merged along with 'organizational'
capability.

In any case, I appreciate the demonstration of operational and
organizational capabilities at a minimum.  However in referring to technical
capabilities, I thought we can further expand the statement to state
'....technical capabilities commensurate with the local technical
environment available to the applicant's region'', or something like that.
This is to consider the various technical limitation i.e power outages, etc.
that will hinder the local many to provide access due to matters outside of
tits technically capability, which happens all the time, in the other side
of the world.

regards,
Sophia.


On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Consistent with the discussion around string contention (option 3A), the
> committee discussed an addition to the applicant criteria as below.
>
> Applicant criteria:
>
> 1. Applicants should be able to demonstrate their technical capability
>
> 2. Applicants should be able to demonstrate their organisational
> capability
>
> 3.  Where the meaning of strings relate to a community where there are
> established institutions (5 years), there should be no significant,
> widespread, and bona-fide opposition from a significant portion (e.g from
> community members or organisations representing more than 25% of the
> affected community) of the community of users relating to that string,
> regarding the suitability of that applicant for that string.
>
>
> The intent of criteria 3 above, is not to require an applicant to provide
> material, or staff to evaluate that material in the initial evaluation
> process.  The intent is to allow a community to raise objections through the
> public comment process, and if these objections appear to be significant,
> than the applicant would then be subject to extended evaluation in this
> area.   The onus will be on the community group raising objections to show
> that their objections are significant.   The ICANN staff would need to check
> whether the objections raised are bona-fide (e.g not produced via a
> computer virus).   The aim is to avoid a few disaffected members of a
> community or potential competitors being able to prevent the introduction of
> a new gTLD.
>
> The wording of 3 will require careful drafting to reflect the intent of
> the committee and prevent gaming.
>
> It will also be important to indicate that this does not relate to
> language or script of the string as it would be displayed on user equipment,
> but to the meaning of the string.     Ie If the string "bank" was rendered
> in Chinese via an "xn--" label - "银行" , the affected institutions could be
> banks within countries where the Chinese language is widely used, or the
> string "banque" would relate to banking institutions in French speaking
> communities.  In contrast  if the string "red" was rendered in Chinese via
> an "xn--" label - "红色" or in French as "rouge", then there are no
> established institutions that relate to colour and this would not
> apply.    [Note I apologise in advance if I have got the Chinese characters
> wrong - they are supposed to be based on simplified chinese]
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin