COMPARATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA
To be successful as a community based application, the application must be
able to achieve a total of at least 14 points from the following four criteria.
This may be reduced to 13 points and is still under discussion.
Criteria 1: Community Establishment
A. Delineation
| 2 points |
1 points |
0 points |
|
Clearly
delineated,
organized, and
pre-existing
community.
|
Clearly
delineated and
pre-existing
community, but
not fulfilling the
requirements
for a score of
2.
|
Insufficient
delineation and
pre-existence for
a score of 1.
|
B. Extension
| 2 points |
1 points |
0 points |
|
Community of
considerable
size and
longevity.
|
Community of
either
considerable
size or
longevity, but
not fulfilling the
requirements
for a score of
2.
|
Community of
neither
considerable size
nor longevity.
|
Criteria 2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
A. Nexus
| 3 points |
2 points |
0 points |
|
The string
matches the
name of the
community or
is a well known
short-form or
abbreviation of
the community
name.
|
String identifies
the community,
but does not
qualify for a
score of 3.
|
String nexus
does not fulfill the
requirements for
a score of 2.
|
B. Uniqueness
| 1 points |
0 points |
|
String has no
other
significant
meaning
beyond
identifying the
community.
|
String does not
fulfill the
requirement for a
score of 1.
|
Criteria 3: Registration Policies
A. Eligibility
| 1 points |
0 points |
|
Eligibility
restricted to
community
members.
|
Largely
unrestricted
approach to
eligibility.
|
B. Name Selection
| 1 points |
0 points |
|
Policies
include name
selection rules
consistent with
the articulated
communitybased
purpose
of the appliedfor
gTLD.
|
Policies do not
fulfill the
requirements for
a score of 1.
|
C. Content and use
| 1 points |
0 points |
|
Policies
include rules
for content and
use consistent
with the
articulated
communitybased
purpose
of the appliedfor
gTLD.
|
Policies do not
fulfill the
requirements for
a score of 1.
|
D. Enforcement
| 1 points |
0 points |
|
Policies
include specific
enforcement
measures (e.g.
investigation
practices,
penalties,
takedown
procedures)
constituting a
coherent set
with
appropriate
appeal
mechanisms.
|
Policies do not
fulfill the
requirements for
a score of 1.
|
Criteria 4: Community Endorsement
A. Support
| 2 points |
1 points |
0 points |
|
Applicant is, or
has
documented
support from,
the recognized
community
institution/
member
organization.
|
support from at
least one
group with
relevance, but
insufficient
support for a
score of 2.
|
Insufficient proof
of support for a
score of 1.
|
A. Opposition
| 2 points |
1 points |
0 points |
|
No opposition
of relevance.
|
Relevant
opposition from
at least one
group of nonnegligible
size.
|
Strong and
relevant
opposition.
|
