Many groups seeking community status were coalitions, not the entire community.
ICANN’s new top level domain name program guidebook afforded communities two ways to get a leg up in acquiring a new top level domain name.
First, they could file a community objection against any applicant. If it won the objection, the losing applicant wouldn’t be able to proceed with its application.
Second, a community that applied for its top level domain name could apply for Community Priority Evaluation. If it met strict guidelines, its application would automatically win, and rival applicants wouldn’t be able to get the domain name.
Here are the results of community objections:
Passed
.Architect International Union of Architects vs. Donuts
.Bank International Banking Federation vs. Dotsecure Inc
.Charity Independent Objector vs. Donuts
.Insurance Financial Services Roundtable vs. Dotfresh Inc
.Med Independent Objector vs. Google and Medistry (later reconsidered)
.Medical Independent Objector vs. Donuts
.Mobile CTIA vs. Amazon
.Polo United States Polo Association vs. Ralph Lauren
.Rugby International Rugby Board vs. dot Rugby Ltd and Donuts
.Ski Fédération Internationale de Ski vs. Donuts
.Sport SPORTACCORD vs. dot Sport Limited
.Sports SPORTACCORD vs. Donuts
Failed
.Amazon Independent Objector vs. Amazon.com
.Band American Association of Independent Music vs. Donuts and Red Triangle
.Basketball FIBA vs. dot Basketball Limited and Donuts
.Book Rakuten vs. Amazon.com
.Charity Independent Objector vs. Famous Four
.Cloud Cloud Industry Forum Limited vs. Symantec, Google and Amazon
.Fly FairSearch.org vs. Google
.Game Entertainment Software Association vs. Amazon.com
.Gay ILGBSIA vs. Minds + Machines, Top Level Design and Rightside
.Gay Metroplex Republicans of Dallas vs. dotgay llc
.Gold World Gold Council vs. Donuts
.Halal UAE vs. Asia Green IT
.Islam UAE vs. Asia Green IT
.Health ICANN ALAC vs. Donuts and DotHealth, LLC
.Healthcare Independent Objector vs. Donuts
.Hotels Hotel Consumer Protection Coalition and HOTREC vs. Booking.com
.Insurance American Insurance Association vs. Dotfresh Inc and Donuts
.Insure American Insurance Association vs. Donuts
.Kosher OU Kosher vs. Kosher Marketing Assets
.LGBT ILGBTIA va. Afilias
.Lotto European State Lotteries Association vs. Afilias
.Mail Universal Postal Union vs. Google, Amazon, Donuts, WhitePages TLD and GMO
.Map FairSearch vs. Google
.Merck and .MerckMSD Merck CGaA vs. Merck Registry Holdings
.Mobile CTIA vs. Dish
.Music A2IM vs. DotMusic Inc, dot music Limited, Amazon, Google, Entertainment Names Inc and Donuts
.Music IFACCA vs. .music LLC
.PersianGulf Gulf Cooperation Council vs. Asia Green IT
.Resien Bundesverband der Deutschen Tourismuswirtscha ft vs. Donuts
.Republican Republican National Committee vs. Rightside
.Search ICOMP vs. Google and FairSearch.org vs. Google
.Shop Japan Association of New Economy vs. Amazon.com
.Song A2IM vs. Amazon.com
.Tunes A2IM vs. Amazon.com
.アマゾン Independent Objector vs. Amazon.com
.亚马逊 Independent Objector vs. Amazon.com
.慈善 Independent Objector vs. Excellent First Limited
23 applicants elected Community Priority Evaluation. Here’s how they fared:
Passed
.Osaka Interlink Co, Ltd (15/16)
.Radio European Broadcasting Union (14/16)
.Hotel Hotel Top-Level-Domain s.a.r.l. (15/16)
.Eco Big Room Inc (14/16)
.Spa Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council (14/16)
Failed
.Immo StartingDot (4/16)
.Taxi Taxi Pay GmbH (6/16)
.Tennis Tennis Australia Ltd (11/16)
.MLS Canadian Real Estate Association (11/16)
.GmbH TLDDot GmbH (5/16)
.LLC Dot Registry LLC (5/16)
.Inc Dot Registry LLC (5/16)
.LLP Dot Registry LLC (5/16)
.Art Eflux.art (7/16)
.Art Dadotart Inc (7/16)
.Gay dotgay LLC (10/16)
.Music .Music LLC (3/16)
.Music DotMusic Limited (10/16)
.Shop GMO Registry (6/16)
.Shop Commercial Connect (5/16)
.CPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (11/16)
.CPA CPA Australia Ltld (12/16)
(A decision for .kids is still outstanding.)
I was against the idea of “community” status and benefits from the beginning. It seemed like something that could be gamed.
ICANN and the community certainly thought about gaming and tried to put in protections against it. Still, the results include some questionable decisions that seem at odds with each other.
I think one of the biggest mistakes ICANN made was not putting examples in its applicant guidebook. I’m sure a lawyer made this decision. But ICANN could have prevented many of these issues by noting certain concepts that universally touch everyone, such as music and sports, could clearly not be a “community” top level domain.
I’ve had trouble expressing this idea in the past. But I think I have a concise explanation now: it’s the difference between coalitions and communities.
Some companies that sought community status created coalitions of people and groups interested in a top level domain name. But these coalitions are not the community.
Music literally touches every human being. Islam is a religion claiming a quarter of the world’s population. Shopping is something we all do.
How can an applicant claim to represent the entirety of these communities?
A mistake in the guidebook left this open to interpretation. Some applicants successfully argued that they represented a subset of a community. By narrowly defining a community and applying it to a broad term, they were able to show they represented the community.
I hope that community definitions are more specific for the next round of new TLDs, or the idea of community applicants is removed. Given the results from this round, something will certainly change next time around.
Constantine Roussos (.MUSIC) says
Andrew,
You have clearly not read the Applicant Guidebook and your analysis is flawed because you are ignoring key criteria. Please refute these comments below if you believe your analysis is precise (it is not):
1) “How can an applicant claim to represent the entirety of these communities?”
Many or most do not claim they represent all of the community in its entirety. In fact they claim they claim they represent a “majority” of the community they defined.
The AGB includes this specific criterion question:
“[t]there are multiple institutions/organizations supporting the application, with documented support from institutions/organizations representing a majority of the overall community addressed?”
According to the AGB: “Also with respect to “Support,” the plurals in brackets for a score of 2, relate to cases of multiple institutions/organizations. In such cases there must be documented support from institutions/organizations representing a majority of the overall community addressed in order to score 2,” (AGB, Module 4, 4-18).
For example, .RADIO was determined to that the “[.RADIO] applicant possesses documented support from institutions/organizations representing a majority of the community addressed.” (.RADIO CPE, p.7).
As you can see the “entirety” mandate is just one of many options that ICANN has allowed. “Majority” of the community defined is another.
2) You claim that a coalition i.e. an alliance was not explicitly mentioned in the AGB. Again, you are mistaken.
AGB, Attachment to Module 2, Evaluation Questions and Criteria: “Descriptions should include: How the community is structured and organized. For a community consisting of an alliance of groups, details about the constituent parts are required,” (AGB, Module 2, Notes, 20A, A-14).
I note that in the case of a “logical alliance” or an “alliance of groups” (which is permitted by the AGB) that ICANN mandates details of each constituent part (i.e. it is required). This means each constituent member must be detailed e.g. “music label”, “music attorney” and so forth. Applicants must follow instructions.
For .HOTEL, ICANN and the EIU stated that .HOTEL has cohesion because their delineated “categories are a logical alliance of members.” (.HOTEL CPE, p.2)
Further, the CPE Guidelines state: “With respect to “Delineation” and “Extension,” it should be noted that a community can consist of…a logical alliance of communities,” CPE Guidelines, p.4).
Conclusion:
The AGB is specific in some aspects. It specifically states that a community that is a “logical alliance” or an “alliance of groups” qualifies as illustrated above. Further, the criterion of representing a community in its entirety that you present as a requirement is not a requirement but one of a few options to score maximum points for “support.” The “majority” criterion assessment applies as well and it relates to the community that is defined. If the definition is a “delineated and organized community of individuals, organizations and business, a “logical alliance of communities of a similar nature,” that relate to music” (DotMusic’s community definition that was disregarded by the Economist and ICANN) then (according to the AGB process guidelines) that is the definition that the entire Community Priority Evaluation is graded against, including whether there is cohesion or not with respect to that community definition. According to Oxford dictionary, an “alliance” is defined as “a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between organizations” or “a state of being joined or associated.”
Applicants were asked to follow specific AGB procedures when it comes to CPE and to answer the questions based on explicit instructions. Community applicants relied on answering those questions based on the AGB. ICANN’s responsibility (and the EIU’s) were to apply established AGB procedures. Just like in the case of .MUSIC, you, ICANN and the EIU (in the case of .MUSIC) disregarded the “majority of the community defined” criterion and only applied the “entirety” test.
Are you stating in your article that the “majority of the defined addressed community” criterion does not exist and should not be applied in CPE when the AGB specifically states that this specific criterion process must be followed because it is a permissible option to earn maximum points?
DLB says
Did someone at ICANN ask you to write this b.s.? You should have looked up the definition of “community” first. Communities are not all equal. Communities can be defined by geographic borders, common interests, social agendas, by laws/regulations, etc. The AGB only states “cohesion” must exist but does not state how (paying fees, membership forms, attending meetings or industry related events, etc.). ICANN and the EIUs failures were to understand that communities, like people, come in all different sizes, shapes, locations, and kinds. If you think about it, we are all a member of some community.
Rubens Kuhl says
One problem with community priority is that it’s not just priority, it’s an automatic kill to other applications. One possible solution is to make CPE actually be a priority level. For instance, if by restricting the TLD to specific registrants a registry loses 80% of the potential registrants, its bid in an auction could be valued 5x; this would provide for equal conditions among those two applications.
Note that doesn’t preclude community objection in getting a TLD or eliminating a TLD for the same sector; .bank, .insurance, .ski and .archi are clear examples of this mechanism that we will also see in a next round.
But by making CPE a sort of handicap factor, evaluating it will be easier, as will be agreeing to outcomes.
This could also be used to apply a social value to public safety, like in a TLD verifying credentials to perform some activities instead of just taking those credentials at face value: such a TLD would have much less registrars and many less registrants due to both less registrars and verifications, but if that is valued into a factor, such application could still beat others at auction.