Dear All, Following up on yesterday’s discussion, below includes the proposed wording of Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6, incorporating input from the ALAC and RySG teams. In addition, the EPDP leadership team proposed some minor refinement (highlighted in [ ]) for terminology consistency purposes. Please be so kind to review this recommendation language and raise any *final* concern on list no later than Wednesday, 4 October. According to our project plan and timeline, the consensus call process must start no later than Thursday, 5 October. You are also welcome to review the updated text for rationale and public comment summary of Rec 3.5, IG 3.6, and Rec 4.4 on pages 14-15, 20, and 47 here (in redline format): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dH7hAtKAuLqMoVftRRvk9JSSlWQOjLuBS_PsTEVW... The other redlines on this document have been accepted, as no further feedback has been raised by the deadline. Thank you all for the review. Best Regards, Ariel == Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of the applied-for [primary gTLD string] or [existing gTLD] delegated primary gTLD string, the applicant seeking to activate one or more gTLD variant labels will describe the justification of such need. The justification given by the applicant shall at minimum provide the following information: 3.5.1 The meaning or intended meaning (for non-dictionary words) of each of the applied-for variant label(s), including sources[;]. 3.5.2 Explanation of how the primary and variant labels are considered the same[;]. 3.5.3 Explain the benefits and the user communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label(s)[; and]. 3.5.4 A description of the steps that the applicant will take to minimize the operational and management complexities of variant gTLDs and variant domain names that impact registrars, resellers and/or registrants. Implementation Guidance 3.6: With respect to the evaluation of the information submitted per Final Recommendation 3.5: 3.6.1 The evaluation panel must include evaluators with relevant language expertise; 3.6.2 The evaluation panel should apply criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness and the criteria must be established during implementation; 3.6.3 Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 of the SubPro PDP Final Report, evaluation scores on the questions should be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only); 3.6.4 The applicant must pass each element to enable the applied-for variant label to proceed to the next stage of the application process; and 3.6.5 The evaluation outcome of any one applied-for variant label should not impact the evaluation outcome of any other applied-for variant label in the application (including the primary gTLD string).