Comments (11)

1. Philip Corwin says:

   September 29, 2011 at 10:45 pm

   I foresee the whole area of questionable “community” applications being a major bane for commercial applicants and a major boon for attorneys (not that I’m against anything that benefits attorneys ;-).
   The Applicant Guidebook, BTW, is very fuzzy as to how a commercial applicant goes about challenging what it believes to be a phony bid by a nonexistent “community”. It will take some creativity.

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     September 29, 2011 at 10:57 pm

     Absolutely.
     I’m pretty certain there are plenty of consultants offering “creative” solutions to these kinds of problems right now.

     Reply
     • Antony Van Couvering says:

       October 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm

       Is anybody reading the guidebook?
       1. “Community” only comes up in contention if an application self-designates as a community *and* opts for community priority evaluation (for a fee — which is non-refundable if they lose).
       2. Very few applications will qualify as a community — certainly not .eco.
       3. If you want to object, you have to have standing to oppose. What are the four grounds for opposing? 1. Legal rights (very attenuated, if any, in .eco); 2. governmental/morality (uh, no); 3. Community objection (see below); and 4. String confusion (effectively, this means you have competition, which for .eco is already a given – winning just puts you in a contention set).
       For .eco, the only likely objection (other than from a competitor, which is a waste of time since you’re already in a contention set) is the community objection (which Phil Corwin refers to).
       What does it take for a community objection? First of all (and most important), standing: “Standing requirements for the four objection grounds are…. Community: Established institution associated with a clearly delineated community.” .eco does not qualify as a “clearly delineated community.” Nor does .music, .gay, or any other generic descriptor of a loosely-defined community.
       Quod erat merda taurorem demonstrandum .

       Reply
       • Kevin Murphy says:

         October 1, 2011 at 1:50 pm

         Nice Latin 🙂
         It’s possible Big Room is hoping for the evaluators to adopt a slightly more liberal interpretation of the CPE scoring mechanism.
         I can’t see it happening personally, but you never know.
         As for creativity, I think it’s pretty obvious there are ways to win/resolve contention sets that don’t revolve entirely around Guidebook objections.

         Reply
2. Tom G says:

   September 30, 2011 at 2:23 am

   This was my first thought when I read the Guardian article, the .eco saga is far from over as it presumes.
   The community card can be played in all sorts of applications. We plan to object to any commercially focused .DENTAL/.DENTIST/.DDS bid that does not protect the interests of the ‘community’. And we have the support from within that community to do so, even if our endorsements and policies would not qualify under the ICANN definition for comparative evaluation.
   I suspect Constantine has plans to make his voice heard during dispute resolution for .MUSIC as well.
   Doesn’t hurt to lobby GAC members either.

   Reply
3. Tom G says:

   September 30, 2011 at 4:54 am

   Also worth note here is the company formerly backed by Al Gore is Dot Eco LLC, NOT M+M or TLDH. It is that company, not TLDH which was preparing to apply for doteco.
   The principal founders and shareholders are similar and those individuals are very keen about the doteco tld, going so far as to successfully oppose the trademark granted to Big Room for the .ECO mark.
   Point being, the money to support the Dot Eco LLC bid probably does not affect the TLDH/M+M War Chest at all. And those financial resources potentially far exceed those of TLDH
   M+M is likely just acting as the supporting technology/consultancy for the Dot Eco LLC bid, not necessarily a party in it.
   Al Gore withdrawing public support is in no way the end of this tale.

   Reply
4. Tom G says:

   September 30, 2011 at 2:18 pm

   ok, so tldh owns 25% of dot ECO LLC, And yes, they are going to apply.
   http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201109300700572363P

   Reply
5. Philip Corwin says:

   October 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm

   I generally concur with Antony’s view that very few applications will (or at least should) qualify as one from a “community” As stated in Section 4.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook:
   “It should be noted that a qualified community application eliminates all directly contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be. This is a
   fundamental reason for very stringent requirements for qualification of a community-based application, as embodied in the criteria below.”
   However, we can anticipate that many applicants will ignore those stringent requirements and self-certify as a “community”, hoping that a liberal evaluator will allow them to trump all standard applications.
   The question then, is how does a qualified commercial applicant confronted by what it believes is an overreaching and bogus “community” application take action against it? The standard grounds for opposing don’t really fit the bill – and you won’t be in the position of claiming that you represent what you think is a non-existent community. (See Section 3.2.2.4 ‘ “Established institutions associated with clearly delineated
   communities are eligible to file a community objection. The community named by the objector must be a community strongly associated with the applied-for gTLD string in the application that is the subject of the objection.”
   I expect that this situation will arise quite a bit — and figuring out an effective means of raising a recognized objection, since the Guidebook doesn’t seem to provide one, is where the creativity will come in.

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     October 1, 2011 at 5:18 pm

     There’s always public comments.
     Evaluators have to take them into account when deciding whether a community is legit or not.
     Two or more non-trivial objections in the comments — which won’t be hard to come by if it really is a bogus app — and the applicant loses two possible points in the CPE.
     That means, as you know, that they’d have to score a maximum possible score on every other criterion. If they really are bogus, that’s not going to happen.
     It’s perhaps not ideal, but at least it’s free.
     And there’s the Independent Objector, of course. He/she/it can object on community grounds.

     Reply
6. Philip Corwin says:

   October 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm

   @Kevin — Agreed that the requirement to score at least 14 out of a possible maximum of 16 sets a high bar.
   However, even two or more non-trivial objections filed via public comments do not result in an automatic loss of 2 points. As stated in the concluding paragraph of Section 4.2.3 –
   “When scoring “Opposition,” previous objections to the application as well as public comments during the same application round will be taken into account and assessed in this context. There will be no presumption that such objections or comments would prevent a score of 2 or lead to any particular score for “Opposition.” To be taken into account as relevant opposition, such objections or comments must be of a reasoned nature. Sources of opposition that are clearly spurious, unsubstantiated, made for a purpose incompatible with competition objectives, or filed for the purpose of obstruction will not be considered relevant.”
   So opposing public comments will be “taken into account”, but there is no guaranteed result. And one presumes that the “community” applicant will be sure to have multiple public statements filed by groups backing its application and attesting to its community bona fides in an attempt to counterbalance anticipated opposition from a competing commercial applicant(s) for the same or a similar string.
   Summing up — lots of room for gaming the evaluation system that will need to confronted by equally creative strategies.

   Reply
7. Tom G says:

   October 1, 2011 at 7:26 pm

   For example:
   ‘Dentist’ is a clearly defined profession, with stringent licensing requirements.
   The ADA (Australian Dental Association) or any number of smaller legitimate dental associations could very likely have standing to object to a purely commercial .DENTIST applicant that includes no verification requirements in their policies.
   This could clear the way for an applicant who, although has not opted for community comparative evaluation, yet contains some measure of protection for the integrity of the TLD.

   Reply