Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit

Justine and team redlines here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit

Here is the relevant recommendation that Jeff is speaking to: Recommendation 34.8: Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.

+1 Jeff

No arguments against that @Jeff

noted @Justine thanks

thx @Jamie

@Justine - yes good point....we should use "documented opposition"

These are important distinctions @Justine thx

I guess my question is why do we need to distinguish between different types of non-economic communities?

From a non-economic grouping aspect, we focus on marginalized, minority, linguistic, cultural, ethnic groups; also traditional knowledge, and indigenous communities.

Which one? Sorry, missed it

Sorry, was looking for some 2012 AGB language. I know that the “double-counting” thing was considered, although perhaps not as effectively implemented as the WG would like to see.

Here: “The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has been taken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion should only be counted there and should not affect the assessment for other criteria.”

2012 AGB itself

+1 Jamie

For example, correcting Criteria #4 alone would have given .gay a score of 12

@Jamie+Justine +1.

Thank you Alan

ttrue - very tired

:-)

Yeah Jeff!

Support that cause their comments are complex

NEXT CALL: Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

considerable progress in discussion today thanks

Thanks all.

bye for now