Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Additional Criteria "Indigenous Peoples"

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry I missed the shot-down-by-Avri moment as there is a natural 
tension between the ALAC charter, which imports, even if silently, the 
public interest purpose of the ALAC, and the GNSO charter, now 
somewhat lapsed, which reflects its stakeholders' interests. Strings 
and their applicants can have purposes in the ALAC sense, benefiting a 
public interest or indifferent to any public purpose, and have no 
purpose whatsoever other than surviving string contention and 
advancing the applicants return on investment goals, in the GNSO sense.
I hope the shot-down-by-Avri moment did not occur while she was 
co-chair, as co-chairs really should not advocate on minor points, let 
alone a substantive issue such as whether the purpose of an applicant 
is relevant to its eligibility standing for assistance.
We have the same natural tension when we look at one half of 
Resolution 20, which references cost, with no other policy reference, 
consistent with the Board's position that there is only one 
application window, and no policy based distinction between 
applications, except where a specific condition in the string 
contention mechanism is called for. Fortunately, the second half of 
Resolution 20 mentions diversity and development, which accommodates 
the public interest goals of the At Large Advisory Committee.
> ...
> Now it is possible that an applicant for such a name will restrict its
> use to one community or one language or one script - however it is
> likely to be attractive to multiple communities, using multiple
> languages and multiple scripts.
The string, if "desi", is in Latin script, and the languages and 
scripts the operator may allow -- and only Urdu may present a 
directionality restriction (due to a defect in the Unicode bidi 
algorithm which treats "." as a sentence terminator, with 
directionality properties, rather than as an opaque label separator, 
with no directionality properties) will exist at the second level.
> Based on the current formulation a for profit applicant based in the
> subcontinent's diaspora (let us say the USA) is very unlikely to succeed
> in a request for assistance, while a not for profit applicant based for
> example in Nepal is quite likely to succeed, given the other criteria.
> HOWEVER the USE to which the string is intended to be used may be identical.
Correct. However, if the applicant from Nepal does not identify the 
applicant as community-based, the existing string contention rules 
will result in allocation between the for-profit US-based applicant 
and the non-profit Nepal-based applicant by auction, which is more 
likely to result in an allocation to the for-profit US-based applicant.
> This in my view leads to problems of unequal treatment based on
> accidents of geography and more importantly the possibility of gaming
> the system.
Please see above.

> Now I recognise that "purpose" is a difficult criterion to measure
> objectively and there is no provision in the RAA to hold an applicant to
> the purpose described (just have a look at the difficulties it has
> created in the sponsored TLD round). However it is in my view something
> that should be considered in evaluating requests for financial
> assistance.
Agree. Finding "purpose" in evaluating applications for assistance is 
distinct from the absence of any test for "purpose" in the application 
evaluation process.
> ... Not that the purpose has to be "not for profit" in all cases
> - I think a good case can be made for a profitable TLD sustaining a
> community objective.
Agree. However, this is still theoretical as no existing gTLD is both 
for-profit and profitable and sustaining a community objective.
PuntCat's formation is non-profit, though it is profitable, and 
sustains a community objective. It is challenging to discern a 
community objective being supported by many of the 2004 sTLDs, as you 
mention.
> Anyway - one more try and I will retire to my observer ivory tower.
I'm glad you did though I think conflating gaming the general 
application evaluation with gaming the specific application assistance 
evaluation mixes two distinct phases of the still-in-drafts-processes.
Eric