Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] GAC Communique on JAS

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Eric

To clarify for all  (and I know you're aware of this) getting a 14 point 
passing score only matters when there is another applicant for the string.   If 
there
is only one applicant then no scoring occurs  (however as you note the 
applicant is tied to their promised Registration Restrictions)

Most community strings will in my opinion,  only have one application 
therefore,  the 14 points wont generally matter.  (i understand there are 
possible exceptions like .GAY)

I understand the point you're making that even if there is only one application 
the Registration Restrictions commitments made by the applicant can affect 
their success.

I think there are very strong reasons to keep community scoring high  (I've 
attached some below).   It seems to me that managing Registration Restictions 
could be done in a way that is not overly damaging to a TLD.  You're familiar 
with the .CAT methods.  I think they would get 3 or 4 points for their 
Registration Restrictions if they were assessed under the current rules.   
Could future Community operators not use something like what CAT uses?

Thx

RT
--------------------------------

1.     Lowering the Score Can Harm Registrants
 An important component of the scoring method is “Criterion #3: Registration 
Policies (0-4 points)”.   Having defined a precise community the applicant must 
then show that through restrictive registration policies only members of that 
community will be able to register second level names.  By definition then, a 
community TLD is not available to everyone at the second level.  You cannot 
have a ‘community’ that anyone can later join.   If the scoring threshold is 
lowered it will be easier for applicants to obtain community status on strings 
that should be available at the second level to a very wide variety of 
registrants.   A low score means that widely used terms could be captured by 
communities of opportunity who will then be prohibited from making second level 
names available to the general public.  This consequence of low community 
scoring is not in the public interest.

 2.      A High Score is the Best Way to Protect Real Communities.  

Community scoring only happens when there are two or more applicants for the 
string  (i.e. if there is only one applicant for the string there is no need 
for a community applicant to pass the 14 point threshold).   In a situation 
where there are two or more applicants for a community claimed string it is in 
the interest of that community to have the scoring threshold at a high level.  
The higher the scoring threshold the more likely the string will be awarded to 
the applicant who most closely represents the community in question.   If the 
scoring threshold is low it will be easier for all applicants to achieve a pass 
score, and this will negate the advantage of the applicant who best represents 
the community.

 3.    A Low Score Will Allow Successful Objections to Legitimate Communities

 The standards for successful Objection to a community application are based on 
the standards required to achieve the 14 point score.  If the scoring threshold 
is lowered it will be easier for groups, who may not be closely associated with 
the community, to successful object and block the applicant.   It is in the 
interest of real communities to have a high score.  

 

 





On Dec 15, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> Applications which are needs-qualified and "community-based" are, due to the 
> current string contention eligibility requirements, either certain to fail if 
> found to be in a contention set, if meeting only 13 or fewer of the 16 
> evaluation points, and lacking access to auction capital, or are certain to 
> fail if meeting the 14/16 evaluation point goal due to highly restrictive 
> registration policies.
> 
> While the issue of community evaluation scoring and string contention policy 
> are outside the apparent remit of the JAS, if the implementation in the 
> current DAG is the final text, then we are highly unlikely to be able to 
> identify contention set surviving, or economically viable community-based 
> applicants, except where the applicant identified the application as 
> community-based, but made no restriction intended to meet the 14 of 16 
> threshold.
> 
> I suggest that this is an issue we can usefully bring to the attention of the 
> Board, and others, as the elimination of community-based applicants from the 
> beneficiaries of the JAS effort is unlikely to have been the Board's intended 
> goal, nor that of the GAC and others contributing to the issue of developing 
> a community-based application type which is not inherently non-viable.
> 
> 
> Please see the comments submitted, particularly those of Amadeu, Avri, and 
> Elisa Cooper of Mark Monitor on the subject of scoring community-based 
> applications.
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00002.html (Amadeu)
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00001.html (Avri)
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00000.html (Elisa Cooper of 
> Mark Monitor)
> 
> Eric