[ALAC] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 09:20:30 UTC 2013


I have posted my views on the wiki. For ease of reference, am copying my
contribution here as well:


Cc: Members of At Large

Re:            *Comments on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the difficult work and task in
creating the guidelines. I have no problems with the Economic Intelligence
Unit (EIU)and think that they are better candidates at prescribing
guidelines without getting emotionally involved. The Unit is universally
recognized and their Publication – The Economist is read in most countries
if not all.

 Their team namely Leo
Phil Todd[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn2>,
Manoj Vohra[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn3>,
Lucy Hurst[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn4>have
a combined synergistic experience that makes them perfect for creating
the Guidelines. Their knowledge of market segmentation, emerging markets,
ICT make them perfectly competent to carry out the task of preparing
Guidelines. ICANN made a great decision to choose an organization that is
independent from the gTLD application process so that there is no hint of
impropriety, impartiality that would possibly open the scope for lawsuits
against ICANN.

 Given that all applications by ICANN are fully transparent, it would be
helpful to know how EIU intend on selections where they find that there is
a situation where they are conflicted.

 On the matter of the CPE, kindly find my comments on the Guidelines below.
I have only commented on bits that I felt were relevant.

*Comments on Guidelines*

* *I acknowledge that the task of creating the CPE is challenging given the
diversity of possible contexts and variables. I note that in forecasting
the guidelines, they would have identified the range of potential
applicants, and they refer to this in the guidelines when describing “size”
and “considerable size”.

*Criterion 1 Community Establishment*

*Comments on 1A*

I note that the whole purpose of the CPE is to provide guidelines for an
evidence evaluation process. My comments on delineation, is that whilst it
is important to establish this clearly. History within the gTLD market
shows us that this on its own is not enough. Further indicators (markers)
should be added to 1A and if there are two competing applicants purporting
to represent a “community”, then there should be other markers. Care should
be taken to protect “traditional knowledge” and “indigenous communities”
that may not have the technological savvy to navigate the systems
effectively. For example, should Louis Vuitton decide to apply for .maasai
and where a Maasai Elder is in the process of protecting their traditional
name. Ron Layton of Light Years IP argues that the Maasai brand is worth
 Intellectual Property and Traditional cultural expressions have been the
subject of global discussions as early as 1967 when there was an amendment
to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works
for the protection of unpublished and anonymous works.

Whilst Trademarks work in a manner where it is first come first serve,
there has to be some level of moral and ethical consideration where it
comes to reservation of names for communities and not allowing them to be
exploited. Some would argue that open waters means every thing is fair game
but I would submit that there are communities who need protection through
leadership and foresight.

*Comments on 1B*


“Considerable size” here is vague. This needs to reflect the diverse
contexts. For example, Niue is a territory that has 1300 people on the
island. Papua New Guinea is a country that has 8 million people. Likewise
communities differ in size. Whilst the definition of size states that it
relates to both members and geographical reach, this should be made
clearer. Tuvalu (.tv), Palau (.pw), Tokelau (.tk) and Niue (.nu) are
examples of small countries. Whilst their domain names were protected by
virtue of them being country codes, there may be community applications
from small countries and the matter of “considerable size” may differ.
Large in terms of membership as an indicator, should a rough percentage be
given in terms of the context or would that make it absurd. Large is
relative on its own. Large in comparison to what?

*Criterion 1 Community Establishment*

*Comments on 2A*

* *

The “overreaching” component can be made a little clear and less ambiguous.

There are some challenges that can be foreseen. Where there are multiple
applications from situations where you have diasporas, how do you
prioritise components showing “nexus”. For example, a country like Niue has
1300 people on the island but about 3500 live in New Zealand and were you
to have a competing application to show “Nexus” what would be the
demarcating factor? Similarly, the Chinese diaspora is global and the two
indicators on “considerable size” may not be as efficient and if there are
instances where the string identifies the community, there could be
challenges in terms of internet searches. What if the information exists
but is not available through internet searches.

*Criterion 4 Community Endorsement*

* *

*Comments on 4A*

There is no mention of individuals or government. There are some
individuals who may not be part of an institution or organization but could
potentially rally to make an endorsement or object.

There should be instances where it is also not just about the majority
because if there was insufficient notice to the communities to respond,
those who understand the mechanics may be the first to lend their support.
Care should be taken that this was gazetted and published in the newspapers
in the countries affecting the communities in their respective languages
and space for people to send their objections or support and a proof of
this to be shown to ICANN. Just because they appear to be the majority does
not necessarily make them the majority until proper notices are published
within the countries.







On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>wrote:

> Good morning Olivier,
> Sure, my comment will be before 31 August. I’m already on the guidelines
> and will give my comments shortly.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 27 août 2013 22:37
> À : tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
> Cc : 'Rinalia Abdul Rahim'; 'ALAC Working List'
> Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement
> on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update
> Dear Tijani,
> On 27/08/2013 19:38, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote:
> > Rinalia, I'm working on the guidelines and will provide you with my
> inputs
> > The deadline is extended to 7 September.
> Thanks for looking into this.
> The deadline was indeed moved to 7 September due to our note to ICANN
> Staff that this was a comment period that was less than 21 days in
> length. There is no reply comment period. So the schedule which I laid
> out, with a closing time for At-Large Comments on 30 August still stands
> if we wish to remain on-track for a 5 working-day ALAC vote.
> Kind regards,
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

More information about the ALAC mailing list