Orbit

Thanks Mark,

Feel free to add your views to the At Large wiki space: https://community.icann.org/m/view-page.action?pageId=42729943

Or to show support there as well, the more voices heard, the better

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Mark Perkins marknoumea@yahoo.com wrote:

+1 Mark

From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com To: Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List picisoc@picisoc.org; PacNOG pacnog@pacnog.org; Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC) civic@dgroups.org; igf-pacific igf-pacific@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [PICISOC] Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines Call for Comments [#gTLDs]

Dear All,

Small Island Developing States have considerable challenges and it is critical that our views are heard. I have posted my thoughts on the wiki and copy them here for your records. Let me know if you want to add to it:

To: ALAC Cc: Members of At Large

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

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 Abruzesse[1], Phil Todd[2], Manoj Vohra[3], Lucy Hurst[4] 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 $10million[5]. 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.

[1] http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LeoAbruzzese.aspx [2] http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [3] http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [4] http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LucyHurst.aspx [5] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22617001

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com wrote: Dear All,

On 16th August, 2013 invitations to give feedback to the Community Priority Evaluation was rendered with the view of closing input on the 30th August, 2013. This has shifted till 7 September, 2013 as it did not factor in the 21 days that need to run before closing the time frame for feedback.

You can access the Community Priority Evaluation Guideline Document here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13-...

You can also send your views here: newgtld-cpe@icann.org.

The ALAC is in the process of preparing a statement and there is room for people to comment directly on the Wiki. If you are a member of an At Large Accredited Structure (ALS) would like to have a Wiki account, please send an email to staff@atlarge.icann.org to enable you to post directly on the wiki from your personal wiki account or you could post anonymously as well. You have the option of raising your views through the At Large space or directly to newgtld-cpe@icann.org.

The ALAC is in the process of developing a statement and it will be put to the ALAC for a vote. If you are not a member of At Large you can still comment on the Guidelines via the email above.

Kind Regards,

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji

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

---

PICISOC members discussion mailing list PICISOC@picisoc.org Unsubscription and other options: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/picisoc PICISOC Web site: http://www.picisoc.org/

---

PICISOC members discussion mailing list PICISOC@picisoc.org Unsubscription and other options: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/picisoc PICISOC Web site: http://www.picisoc.org/