Comments (5)

1. Jamie Baxter says:

   February 3, 2016 at 10:05 pm

   Despite the CPE Panel Process Document stating “[a]s part of this process, one of the two evaluators assigned to
   assess the same string is asked to verify the letters of support and opposition,” the BGC has acknowledged in their ruling that in fact it has been EIU’s core team members doing the letter verification all along, not the evaluators as written. This in itself if not following the process rules that the EIU wrote, and which ICANN approved.

   Reply
2. Constantine Roussos (.MUSIC) says:

   February 3, 2016 at 10:12 pm

   It seems that ICANN just opened another can of worms. According to this .GAY ICANN BGC determination, ICANN inconsistently states that:
   “The Requester also argues that reconsideration is warranted because…[the] other CPE panel (… evaluating… .HOTEL) awarded the full two points as to the support element. Yet there is no inconsistency between those reports and the Second CPE Report here: neither of the previous reports expressly found that no single organization represents the community. Here, in contrast, the Second CPE Panel explicitly found that no such organization exists with respect to the gay community.” (ICANN BGC, Pg. 27 & 28)
   The CPE rules do not mandate a “single organization [that] represents the community.” There are other alternatives permitted such as having the “majority” of the community addressed on board (for “Support”). CPE offers other alternatives to the panel, such as:
   “Multiple institutions/organizations supporting the
   application, with documented support from institutions/organizations representing a majority of the overall community addressed?” or “support from the majority of the recognized community institution/member organizations.” (CPE Guidelines, Pg. 18)
   Under “Community Establishment” it could be an organization “mainly” dedicated to the community addressed. For example, despite ICANN stating in this BGC determination that .HOTEL did not have an organization “mainly dedicated” to the community, the EIU stated that .HOTEL did in fact have that (the EIU gave .HOTEL full points for that):
   “The [.HOTEL] applicant had documented support from the recognized community member organization” (EIU CPE, Pg.6)
   Another issue is that ICANN claims that the CPE criteria is to have support from a “single such organization recognized by all of the defined community’s members as the representative of the defined community in its entirety.”
   There is no such language in the CPE Guidelines concerning “entirety.” So on one hand, checking out the dictionary definition of “gay” is appropriate for scoring DotGay’s definition but when it comes to the definition of “mainly” ICANN or the EIU does not apply the dictionary definition and interprets it as defined as “in its entirety?” (which is not the dictionary definition of “mainly”).
   If ICANN and the EIU hold “in its entirety” as true (it is not), how can ICANN or the EIU agree and determine that the International Hotel and Restaurant Association (IH&RA) represents all hotels “in their entirety”? How can the International Spa Association (ISA) represent all spas globally in their “entirety”? I do not see the word “entirety” in the AGB or CPE Guidelines as THE requirement.
   According to CPE rules:
   “”Organized” implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to the community, with documented evidence of community activities.” (CPE Guidelines, pg.4)
   “Mainly” dedicated does not mean “in their entirety.” In fact the CPE guidelines do not define “mainly” but leave it to one’s interpretation (i.e “could imply”) that:
   “”Mainly” could imply that the entity administering
   the community may have additional
   roles/functions beyond administering the
   community, but one of the key or primary
   purposes/functions of the entity is to administer a
   community or a community organization.” (pg.4)
   According to any dictionary, the word “mainly” means “at most part” i.e. more than 50%. It does not mean “entirety” i.e. 100%.
   The .HOTEL EIU determination is correct in determining that the International Hotel and Restaurant Association (IH&RA) is an organization that is “mainly” dedicated to the hotel community and its “primary purpose is to administer a community organization” even though it might have other “roles/functions” (in this case also administering the “restaurant” community).
   A reasonable assessment would conclude similarly that ILGA is an organization MAINLY dedicated to the “gay” community and may have other roles (e.g. administering the BTQIA community). If the IHRA (which also represents restaurants) can be an entity mainly dedicated to the hotel community then ILGA is similarly an organization MAINLY dedicated to the gay community (just as “restaurants” were permitted for IHRA, the rest of the BTQIA community should be reasonably be interpreted as falling under “other roles/functions”).
   This is quite a disappointing result and ICANN certainly has opened a can of worms with their inconsistent interpretations of the AGB and CPE rules while making further inconsistent statements that the EIU did not determine that .HOTEL CPE did not have an organization mainly dedicated to the hotel community (while in truth it was awarded the full points and there was such an organization: IHRA).
   CPE is one of the most frustrated, unpredictable experiences in the history of ICANN processes. Community applicants with demonstrable community support have worked diligently for years and years to meet the criteria and gather support. It seems that determinations for those with demonstrable support seem to be a simple coin flop. This lack of transparency, accountability and predictability is beyond frustrating for community applicants with demonstrable support who have relied on the ICANN process and the rules for a fair decision.
   We are biting our nails here waiting for ICANN to come up with the .MUSIC CPE decision, which clearly exceeds all the criteria (Under the CPE rules .MUSIC clearly passes CPE, http://music.us/dotmusic-community-application-passes-cpe-consistent-with-eiu-determinations).
   The .GAY determination is inconsistent and it is unacceptable that ICANN is putting community applicants with demonstrable support under such stress caused by unpredictable and inconsistent results. It seems ICANN and the EIU are comfortable making determinations based imprecise and inconsistent criteria because they do not fear any accountability, repercussions or risk to their credibility or reputation (especially for the Economist, which I regard as a highly respected and reputable institution).
   According to ICANN, “new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.” Is there anyone that believes this has been accomplished with CPE or that CPE was conducted predictably, fairly and consistently?
   Constantine Roussos
   .MUSIC

   Reply
3. Hire Domains says:

   February 4, 2016 at 12:27 am

   We are not homophobic, it’s just there is no money in community based extension, how will we eat first class?

   Reply
4. Acro says:

   February 4, 2016 at 1:06 am

   Will things change after Chehade’s tenure ends?

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     February 4, 2016 at 1:11 am

     Chehade is not on the BGC.

     Reply