October 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

ICANN66: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN66 Meeting Schedule<https://66.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN66 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the full schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. · Downloading creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. · Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All sessions allowing remote participation will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN66 Meeting Schedule<https://66.schedule.icann.org> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg>. Zoom access details for closed meetings will be communicated separately. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, to dial into the audio refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Montreal to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Here is the information for Category 2-A Nexus from the FTI Review Report. Let us know if wording needs to change. Nexus: Category 2-A To receive a partial score of two points for Nexus,129 the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the Applicant Guidebook, "'Identify' means that the applied-for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community."130 In order to receive the maximum score of three points, the applied-for string must: (i) "identify" the community; and (ii) match the name of the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community. FTI observed that the CPE Provider determined that the applications underlying 19 CPE reports received zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion because, in the CPE Provider's determination, the applications failed to satisfy both of the requirements described above. First, for the applications underlying 11 of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider determined that the appliedfor string did not identify the community because it substantially overreached the community as defined in the application by indicating a wider or related community of which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant's community.131, 132 Second, for the applications underlying eight of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider found that the applied-for string did not match the name of the community or was not a well-known short form or abbreviation. In this regard, the CPE Provider determined that, although the string identified the name of the core community members, it failed to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities included in the definition of the community set forth in the application. Therefore, there was a misalignment between the proposed string and the proposed community.133 In several cases, the CPE Provider's conclusion that the string did not identify the entire community was the consequence of the CPE Provider's finding that the proposed community was not clearly delineated because it described a dispersed or unbound group of persons or entities.134 Without a clearly delineated community, the CPE Provider concluded that the one-word string could not adequately identify the community. Five CPE reports recorded two points for the Nexus sub-criterion.135 FTI observed that these CPE reports recorded partial points because the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications satisfied only the two-point requirement for Nexus: the applied-for string must identify the community.136 The CPE Provider determined that, although the applied-for string identified the proposed community as defined in the application, it did not "match" the name of the community nor constitute a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name.137 Specifically, the CPE Provider concluded that, for the applications underlying these five CPE reports, the community definition encompassed individuals or entities that were tangentially related to the proposed community as defined in the application and therefore, the general public may not necessarily associate all of the members of the defined community with the string.138 Thus, for these applications, there was no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus.139 For all CPE reports that did not record the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider's rationale was based on the definition of the community as defined in the application.139 Two CPE reports recorded the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.140 The CPE Provider determined that the applied-for string in the applications underlying these two CPE reports was closely aligned with the community as defined in the application,141 and/or was the established name by which the community is commonly known by others.142 129 The Applicant Guidebook does not provide for one point to be awarded for the Nexus sub-criterion. An application only may receive two points or three points for the Nexus sub-criterion. 130 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/stringcontention-procedures-04…) 131 MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714-en.…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723-696…) MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-7217-e…) MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-1702-73085…) CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-56672-en.…) CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-1971-en.p…) SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 1830-1672-en.pdf); and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en…) 132 See Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 Criterion 2 definitions and Criterion 2 guidelines at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0…) 133 GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351- en.pdf) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. companies with the legal form of a GmbH), it does not match or identify the regulatory authorities, courts and other institutions that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A."); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e…) (where community is defined to include tangentially related industries, applied-for string name of "TAXI" fails to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities that are included in the defined community); IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e…) (applied for string identifies only the name of the core community members (primary and secondary real estate members), but fails to identify peripheral industries and entities described as part of the community by the applicant and does not match the defined community); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.…) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. artists and organized members of the arts community) it does not match or identify the art supporters that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A" such as "audiences, consumers, and donors"); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e…) (concluding that although applied-for string identifies the core community members—kids—it fails to closely describe other community members such as parents, who are not commonly known as "kids"); MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) (applied for string is over inclusive, identifying more individuals than are included in the defined community); GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) (the applied for string refers to a large group of individuals – all gay people worldwide – of which the community as defined by the applicant is only a part); and GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) (applied-for string "GAY" is commonly used to refer to men and women who identify as homosexual but not necessarily to others in the defined community). 134 See, e.g., KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- 46695-en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1- 1097-20833-en.pdf); and IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immocpe-1-1000-62742-en…) 135 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- en.pdf) ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1- 1115-14110-en.pdf); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radiocpe-1-1083-39123-…) 136 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pgs. 4-12-4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0…) 137 See, e.g., ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314- en.pdf) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or well-known name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own). 138 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf) (applied-for string "HOTEL" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a wellknown name for other members of the community such as hotel marketing associations that are only related to hotels); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) (concluding that because the community defined in the application is a collection of many categories of individuals and organizations, there is no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus, but that partial points may be awarded because the string "MUSIC" identifies all member categories, and successfully identifies the individuals and organizations included in the applicant's defined community); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or wellknown name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.…) (applied-for string "ART" identifies defined community, but, given the subjective meaning of what constitutes art, general public may not associate all members of the broadly defined community with the applied-for string); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- 39123-en.pdf) (applied-for string "RADIO" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a well-known name for other members of the community such as companies providing specific services that are only related to radio). 139 See, e.g., MUSIC (DotMusic Limited) CPE Report ( https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) 140 OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- en.pdf); and SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf). 141 SPA CPE Report at Pg. 4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf); and OSAKA CPE Report at Pgs. 3-4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osakacpe-1-901-9391-en…) 142 SPA CPE Report at Pgs. 4-5 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309- 81322-en.pdf). Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines Good afternoon Working Group members On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures. My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published. 1-A Delineation Page 4: “Delineation” The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system. Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU? 2-A Nexus “Identify” The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus. My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community. The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths. 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197) 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197) What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc). This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community. The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football). Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction. Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community. 4-B Opposition “Relevance” As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy. Cheers Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

2 3

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 15 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 15 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Implementation Guideline F: If there is contention for strings, applicants may...iii) [the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels.] Place in brackets and return for further discussion. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 8 -- Change title to string contention mechanisms of last resort. -- Material from the Supplemental Initial Report. -- Policy Goals: The WG is largely supportive of existing Implementation Guideline F below. -- Implementation Guideline F: If there is contention for strings, applicants may: i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels. -- Not sure if we need item iii) above. In 2012 the expert panels made the decision. If we keep it we could say “ICANN Board may use outside expert panels to make community priority determinations”. -- Could it be the case that the Board would be involved in the appeals mechanisms? What’s the harm of keeping the Board in a role? Suggest keeping it in. -- If we keep it the way it’s worded there is some expectation for a Board role. In 2012 the Board had no role in making the final decision. -- Example of various dependencies between sections. Don’t have a sense that we have finalized the discussions on the appeal mechanisms. Need to keep it in until we finalize related discussions. -- Qualify (iii) subject to recommendations regarding the new appeals mechanism.  -- Pretty much every section would have that qualification. -- Seems that the appeals mechanism basically states that the evaluation happens at the panel level. The Board didn’t get involved in 2012 unless it was an accountability mechanism. Hesitant to get the Board involved. -- ACTION: Keep the language bracketed and return for further discussion. High-level Agreements * There should be additional options for applicants to voluntarily resolve contention sets by mutual agreement before being forced into an ICANN auction of last resort. * Do we add Vickrey Auction? -- Added the second bullet -- seemed that there was a lot of support for the Vickrey Auction option. Outstanding Items: Maintaining auctions of last resort within the New gTLD Program -- Agreement: BRG, Neustar, some RySG members, IPC (conditional on greater flexibility for private resolution) --Divergence: GAC (auctions of last resort should not be used to resolve contention between commercial and non-commercial applications), ALAC (opposes mechanism used in 2012, prefers a different option, see additional comments below), BC (Auctions of last resort should be eliminated, since it mostly benefits companies with deep pockets and negatively affects applicants from developing nations. Instead of auctions, there should be an inclusion of a request for proposals (RFP) process that advantages Community-based applicants, minority supported applicants, or other factors yet to be determined. BC also expresses support for Vickrey Auction as an alternative). Fairness of mechanism of last resort * Belief that auctions of last resort are inherently unfair (ALAC, some RySG members) * Does not believe auctions of last resort are inherently unfair (BRG, IPC, Neustar, NCSG) Mechanisms to make auctions more “fair” and other considerations of “fairness” * Multiplier for certain types of applications/applicants (e.g., Global South) * Placing limits on the number of auctions an applicant can participate in -- Only NCSG supported the second option. -- What mechanism could be used to implement that option? It would be difficult to enforce. Could be why there isn’t much support. -- How do we distribute these new TLDs if one applicant requests thousands. -- Don’t think we can say that the commenters cumulatively say there is a problem. -- If there is a problem and we don’t have a different way of solving it then we are kind of stuck. -- Some of that was discussed with the new ideas for types of approaches to the way the Auctions ran last round, with the closed bids etc.,that were discussed ; the Mechanisms of last resort options might be critical here Other measures to enhance “fairness” -- IPC: Take a broad view of what constitutes fairness. -- Neustar: Make sure that in creating the new rules we don’t create unfairness to others. -- RySG: Goes more towards when the sealed bids are submitted and revealed, as opposed to fairness. Other members caution balancing fairness and competition. -- NCSG: Consult with auction specialists. -- If we do keep auctions, then the big issues are 1) type 2) multiplier for certain groups. Other types of auctions/other resolution mechanisms -- Vickrey auction got some support: -- Several comments were supportive of the Vickrey model, but not of the proposal to require bids at the time of application submission. -- This is a sealed bid auction. -- Don’t think we have agreement on the timing of when the bids would be submitted or revealed. -- The WG would need to make some sort of recommendation of when bids are submitted and when revealed, and whether there is a multiplier. -- If we put in a multiplier, the ALAC option seems worth considering: ASP: Applicants that have qualified for support under the Applicant Support Program (ASP) but subsequently enter into a contention set for their applied-for string after having failed the voluntary resolution route could have their secret bid automatically upgraded by a fixed multiplier (such as factor of 1.5) (eg. such an applicant’s bid of US$400,000 is automatically deemed as US$600,000 when eventually ‘revealed’ in a Vickrey auction). -- Question: Did we look at whether a qualified Applicant Support application should simply WIN a string contention set? This seems to be a really contrary concept. -- Question: Was the Vickrey Auction put out as an option in the Supplemental Initial Report? Yes, it was. Comments came back in response to the proposal. -- Isn’t allowing applicants to work together to resolve the issue the same as an auction? We’ll be looking at options for private resolutions next. -- If we have a Vickrey Auction and people have to bid upfront, and an application fees, and high refunds, people will put in multiple applications to game the system. -- I think if sealed bids were to be placed only when contention set is established then the identity of applicants should not be revealed before sealed bids are put in. -- There is a balance to be considered -- having the application fee amount kept reasonably high is one way of discouraging affiliated party applying for same string. -- Multiplier issue: the ALAC has the most narrow proposal -- a multiplier feature for those that qualify for applicant support. When the WG initially discussed this if someone applied for applicant support there was concern about applications that didn’t have anything to do with the developing country/circumstances. -- Unless applicants which prevail in ASP gets priority like those who win CPE, then ASP qualifiers will still need to participate in auctions if they fall in a contention set. So a multiplier is intended to help such applicants level the playing field against richer applicants. -- No comments from auction providers on multipliers. -- Timing of bid or when revealed seems arbitrary at the moment -- maybe identify the objectives the WG is trying to achieve. Or maybe the WG doesn’t need to determine the details, could be determined in implementation. Might be helpful to set those foundational building blocks. -- If we do select an option that should go out for public comment. -- Identities of parties participating in auctions should not be revealed before sealed bids are put in UNLESS it is necessary to establish which applicants can enjoy a multiplier privilege. -- I think we need to think/talk through the timing of bids some more. There are some things that bids at application solve that we haven't touched on. Next Meeting: Continue on the Vickrey auctions topic on the next call.

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/nooCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear group,I have another suggestion. What about community definition adaptions? Either post-application-submission; or PRE-application-submission.Seemingly most CPEs failed due to insufficient community definitions: too broad or too narrow.Imagine somebody would apply for ".catalonia" as a community priority gTLD. In their definition the community would be all people living in Catalonia (an autonomous region of Spain) PLUS Catalonians in exile. The "plus" would be added out of "political correctness"; and to Jamie's earlier point: because that's how the COMMUNITY perceives itself.The CPE panel might decide that they WOULD score 14 or 15 points - IF there wouldn't be the "plus" (here: "Catalonians in exile"; too broad).Shouldn't we allow the applicant to adapt? I hear some work group members here saying:"Hey; you got ONE shot: do it right - or live with the burdens ....." (being that you don't get the community priority AND still have to live up to the community restrictions).So to accommodate those voices: What if ICANN offers a PRE-APPLICATION CPE? Prospective applicants would pay for a CPE even BEFORE they apply - if they score high enough - they are fine and don't need to repeat. If they score not high enough they could learn WHAT exactly was wrong - and adapt. Obviously such pre-application-CPE would have to be kept strictly confidential and be only visible to the applicant. The applicant would have to pay for it. It would NOT clock up ICANNs resources as the CPE provider would be an external entity. Additional benefit: applicants with a pre-approved CPE could immediately "sail through" - and the contention set wouldn't even need to be evaluated and could be reimbursed with 100% of their application fees. It would save the contention set a LOT of trouble and money - speed up the process and create "predictability". If the applicant would score so low that they would understand that no amount of adaption would ever help - they could simply apply as standard applicant: and hence, too, speed up the process - as the contention set won't have to wait YEARS for the CPE to be invoked and processed.And this time around we will have the CPE provider being selected and trained LONG BEFORE application submission. ICANN could do that as soon as the relevant AGB provisions are finalized - and hence avoid having to do it in the "hot phase" shortly before or after the application window.This would foster the submission of community applications and create predictability. It would fit the ICANN mission a lot! Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: 10/15/19 01:36 (GMT+02:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: "Dean Marks (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com) (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com)" <deansmarks(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A Thanks Jeff,COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATIONSRegarding Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) and adopting the attached EIU guidelines for CPE evaluation for the next round, could you please remind me whether we solicited public comment on your proposal that the WG adopt the attached EIU guidelines for the next round? (Sorry – I don’t recall discussing this point system specifically in the Work Track 3 phone calls but that was a while ago.)I agree with Jamie that the EIU Guidelines definition of “significant opposition” needs clarification. It would be good to develop some modified language about “balancing” support for and opposition against the community application as suggested on the call and as reflected by Steve Chan in the document.It’s unclear to me how the system of “extra points” discussed on the call would work in relation to the purpose of the Community Application?In relation to further discussion of issues from the October 10 call, I note on behalf of IPC that economic communities were expressly included in the 2012 round policy work. In order to delete the economic communities from the definition (as suggested by the Council of Europe), we would need a consensus which we do not have. So we assume that economic communities remain eligible. (This topic was also discussed in Work Track 3 calls.) Here, I think it’s important to keep in mind that some developing nations utilize economic development corporations to pull together a plan to improve their economies or regions. I don’t think anyone would want to exclude the ability of such a development corporation to be eligible for a community priority evaluation. Oftentimes these development corporations can be formed after natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes in order to promote funding and redevelopment efforts. Further, keeping the eligibility for economic communities supports the new gTLD Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression.APPEAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO ICANN ORG DECISIONS, THIRD PARTY EVALUATIONS, OBJECTION PANEL RULINGS, AND COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION DETERMINATIONSRegarding the appeals chart at the link below, it’s not clear how to register comments. Can you please clarify? (Internal guidelines do not permit me to log in to a Google document.) Since we cannot edit the document, where and how do we enter our comments?Appeals Chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… Question: Regarding the possible appeal of a CPE determination, are we saying that those with standing to contest that initial CPE determination and file an appeal (either way) would be in a position to lodge a point-by-point challenge to the exact number of points given or not given in connection with the EIU guidelines for scoring as shown in the attachment? (I just need to know this in order to review with IPC.) So, by way of example, say I’m in a string contention set with a CPE application and that application is awarded community status and I then argue that for each of the ten subcriteria in the EIU guidelines, the alleged Community should have been given fewer points or 0 points than it actually received. Is that the type of appeal we are contemplating? And isn’t it likely that the CPE would ALWAYS be challenged by any competing applications that were not community based? How would “extra points” given in relation to the purpose of the Community Application be weighed in the appeals process?Thank you,AnneFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Monday, October 14, 2019 1:54 PMTo: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A[EXTERNAL]________________________________Here is the information for Category 2-A Nexus from the FTI Review Report. Let us know if wording needs to change.Nexus: Category 2-ATo receive a partial score of two points for Nexus,129 the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the Applicant Guidebook, "'Identify' means that the applied-for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community."130 In order to receive the maximum score of three points, the applied-for string must: (i) "identify" the community; and (ii) match the name of the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community.FTI observed that the CPE Provider determined that the applications underlying 19 CPE reports received zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion because, in the CPE Provider's determination, the applications failed to satisfy both of the requirements described above. First, for the applications underlying 11 of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider determined that the appliedfor string did not identify the community because it substantially overreached the community as defined in the application by indicating a wider or related community of which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant's community.131, 132Second, for the applications underlying eight of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider found that the applied-for string did not match the name of the community or was not a well-known short form or abbreviation. In this regard, the CPE Provider determined that, although the string identified the name of the core community members, it failed to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities included in the definition of the community set forth in the application. Therefore, there was a misalignment between the proposed string and the proposed community.133 In several cases, the CPE Provider's conclusion that the string did not identify the entire community was the consequence of the CPE Provider's finding that the proposed community was not clearly delineated because it described a dispersed or unbound group of persons or entities.134 Without a clearly delineated community, the CPE Provider concluded that the one-word string could not adequately identify the community.Five CPE reports recorded two points for the Nexus sub-criterion.135 FTI observed that these CPE reports recorded partial points because the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications satisfied only the two-point requirement for Nexus: the applied-for string must identify the community.136 The CPE Provider determined that, although the applied-for string identified the proposed community as defined in the application, it did not "match" the name of the community nor constitute a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name.137 Specifically, the CPE Provider concluded that, for the applications underlying these five CPE reports, the community definition encompassed individuals or entities that were tangentially related to the proposed community as defined in the application and therefore, the general public may not necessarily associate all of the members of the defined community with the string.138 Thus, for these applications, there was no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus.139 For all CPE reports that did not record the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider's rationale was based on the definition of the community as defined in the application.139Two CPE reports recorded the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.140 The CPE Provider determined that the applied-for string in the applications underlying these two CPE reports was closely aligned with the community as defined in the application,141 and/or was the established name by which the community is commonly known by others.142129 The Applicant Guidebook does not provide for one point to be awarded for the Nexus sub-criterion. An application only may receive two points or three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.130 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/stringcontention-procedures-04… MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714-en.…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723-696…) MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-7217-e…) MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-1702-73085…) CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-56672-en.…) CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-1971-en.p…) SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 1830-1672-en.pdf); and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en… See Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 Criterion 2 definitions and Criterion 2 guidelines at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351- en.pdf) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. companies with the legal form of a GmbH), it does not match or identify the regulatory authorities, courts and other institutions that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A."); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e…) (where community is defined to include tangentially related industries, applied-for string name of "TAXI" fails to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities that are included in the defined community); IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e…) (applied for string identifies only the name of the core community members (primary and secondary real estate members), but fails to identify peripheral industries and entities described as part of the community by the applicant and does not match the defined community); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.…) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. artists and organized members of the arts community) it does not match or identify the art supporters that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A" such as "audiences, consumers, and donors"); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e…) (concluding that although applied-for string identifies the core community members—kids—it fails to closely describe other community members such as parents, who are not commonly known as "kids"); MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) (applied for string is over inclusive, identifying more individuals than are included in the defined community); GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) (the applied for string refers to a large group of individuals – all gay people worldwide – of which the community as defined by the applicant is only a part); and GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) (applied-for string "GAY" is commonly used to refer to men and women who identify as homosexual but not necessarily to others in the defined community).134 See, e.g., KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- 46695-en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1- 1097-20833-en.pdf); and IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immocpe-1-1000-62742-en… HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- en.pdf) ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1- 1115-14110-en.pdf); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radiocpe-1-1083-39123-… Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pgs. 4-12-4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… See, e.g., ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314- en.pdf) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or well-known name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own).138 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf) (applied-for string "HOTEL" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a wellknown name for other members of the community such as hotel marketing associations that are only related to hotels); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) (concluding that because the community defined in the application is a collection of many categories of individuals and organizations, there is no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus, but that partial points may be awarded because the string "MUSIC" identifies all member categories, and successfully identifies the individuals and organizations included in the applicant's defined community); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or wellknown name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.…) (applied-for string "ART" identifies defined community, but, given the subjective meaning of what constitutes art, general public may not associate all members of the broadly defined community with the applied-for string); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- 39123-en.pdf) (applied-for string "RADIO" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a well-known name for other members of the community such as companies providing specific services that are only related to radio).139 See, e.g., MUSIC (DotMusic Limited) CPE Report ( https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110… OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- en.pdf); and SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf).141 SPA CPE Report at Pg. 4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf); and OSAKA CPE Report at Pgs. 3-4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osakacpe-1-901-9391-en… SPA CPE Report at Pgs. 4-5 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309- 81322-en.pdf).Jeff NeumanSenior Vice PresidentCom Laude | ValideusD: +1.703.635.7514E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary GuidelinesGood afternoon Working Group membersOn the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures.My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published.1-A DelineationPage 4: “Delineation”The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system.Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU?2-A Nexus“Identify”The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus.My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community.The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths.1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197)2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197)What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc).This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community.The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football).Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction.Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community.4-B Opposition“Relevance”As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round.To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.CheersJamieJamie Baxterdotgay LLCjamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/>A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/>and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PMTo: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary GuidelinesAll,I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf”One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear.Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities.We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call.Best regards,Jeff NeumanSenior Vice PresidentCom Laude | ValideusD: +1.703.635.7514E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily BarabasSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019Dear Working Group members,Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB.Kind regards,EmilyNotes and Action Items:Action Item:ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdfNotes…. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f…. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic.3. AOB * None.________________________________The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediat

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear Anne,Yes; I think there needs to be a fine balance between the amount of support - and opposition. If you have STELLAR community support - then just a few tiny objection letters shouldn't cost you points. I think this was baked into the CPE as a result of the Adult Industry's .xxx objections; where you had limited support and limited objections.But if you have HUNDREDS of associations (especially the biggest ones) in support - then the objection of a few TINY players shouldn't cost points. The numbers of represented community members should be looked at: if the supporting organizations represent e.g. 10 Million members; but the opposition represents 1,000 members - how does that even count?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: 10/15/19 01:36 (GMT+02:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: "Dean Marks (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com) (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com)" <deansmarks(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A Thanks Jeff,COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATIONSRegarding Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) and adopting the attached EIU guidelines for CPE evaluation for the next round, could you please remind me whether we solicited public comment on your proposal that the WG adopt the attached EIU guidelines for the next round? (Sorry – I don’t recall discussing this point system specifically in the Work Track 3 phone calls but that was a while ago.)I agree with Jamie that the EIU Guidelines definition of “significant opposition” needs clarification. It would be good to develop some modified language about “balancing” support for and opposition against the community application as suggested on the call and as reflected by Steve Chan in the document.It’s unclear to me how the system of “extra points” discussed on the call would work in relation to the purpose of the Community Application?In relation to further discussion of issues from the October 10 call, I note on behalf of IPC that economic communities were expressly included in the 2012 round policy work. In order to delete the economic communities from the definition (as suggested by the Council of Europe), we would need a consensus which we do not have. So we assume that economic communities remain eligible. (This topic was also discussed in Work Track 3 calls.) Here, I think it’s important to keep in mind that some developing nations utilize economic development corporations to pull together a plan to improve their economies or regions. I don’t think anyone would want to exclude the ability of such a development corporation to be eligible for a community priority evaluation. Oftentimes these development corporations can be formed after natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes in order to promote funding and redevelopment efforts. Further, keeping the eligibility for economic communities supports the new gTLD Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression.APPEAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO ICANN ORG DECISIONS, THIRD PARTY EVALUATIONS, OBJECTION PANEL RULINGS, AND COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION DETERMINATIONSRegarding the appeals chart at the link below, it’s not clear how to register comments. Can you please clarify? (Internal guidelines do not permit me to log in to a Google document.) Since we cannot edit the document, where and how do we enter our comments?Appeals Chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… Question: Regarding the possible appeal of a CPE determination, are we saying that those with standing to contest that initial CPE determination and file an appeal (either way) would be in a position to lodge a point-by-point challenge to the exact number of points given or not given in connection with the EIU guidelines for scoring as shown in the attachment? (I just need to know this in order to review with IPC.) So, by way of example, say I’m in a string contention set with a CPE application and that application is awarded community status and I then argue that for each of the ten subcriteria in the EIU guidelines, the alleged Community should have been given fewer points or 0 points than it actually received. Is that the type of appeal we are contemplating? And isn’t it likely that the CPE would ALWAYS be challenged by any competing applications that were not community based? How would “extra points” given in relation to the purpose of the Community Application be weighed in the appeals process?Thank you,AnneFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Monday, October 14, 2019 1:54 PMTo: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A[EXTERNAL]________________________________Here is the information for Category 2-A Nexus from the FTI Review Report. Let us know if wording needs to change.Nexus: Category 2-ATo receive a partial score of two points for Nexus,129 the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the Applicant Guidebook, "'Identify' means that the applied-for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community."130 In order to receive the maximum score of three points, the applied-for string must: (i) "identify" the community; and (ii) match the name of the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community.FTI observed that the CPE Provider determined that the applications underlying 19 CPE reports received zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion because, in the CPE Provider's determination, the applications failed to satisfy both of the requirements described above. First, for the applications underlying 11 of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider determined that the appliedfor string did not identify the community because it substantially overreached the community as defined in the application by indicating a wider or related community of which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant's community.131, 132Second, for the applications underlying eight of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider found that the applied-for string did not match the name of the community or was not a well-known short form or abbreviation. In this regard, the CPE Provider determined that, although the string identified the name of the core community members, it failed to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities included in the definition of the community set forth in the application. Therefore, there was a misalignment between the proposed string and the proposed community.133 In several cases, the CPE Provider's conclusion that the string did not identify the entire community was the consequence of the CPE Provider's finding that the proposed community was not clearly delineated because it described a dispersed or unbound group of persons or entities.134 Without a clearly delineated community, the CPE Provider concluded that the one-word string could not adequately identify the community.Five CPE reports recorded two points for the Nexus sub-criterion.135 FTI observed that these CPE reports recorded partial points because the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications satisfied only the two-point requirement for Nexus: the applied-for string must identify the community.136 The CPE Provider determined that, although the applied-for string identified the proposed community as defined in the application, it did not "match" the name of the community nor constitute a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name.137 Specifically, the CPE Provider concluded that, for the applications underlying these five CPE reports, the community definition encompassed individuals or entities that were tangentially related to the proposed community as defined in the application and therefore, the general public may not necessarily associate all of the members of the defined community with the string.138 Thus, for these applications, there was no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus.139 For all CPE reports that did not record the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider's rationale was based on the definition of the community as defined in the application.139Two CPE reports recorded the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.140 The CPE Provider determined that the applied-for string in the applications underlying these two CPE reports was closely aligned with the community as defined in the application,141 and/or was the established name by which the community is commonly known by others.142129 The Applicant Guidebook does not provide for one point to be awarded for the Nexus sub-criterion. An application only may receive two points or three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.130 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/stringcontention-procedures-04… MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714-en.…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723-696…) MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-7217-e…) MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-1702-73085…) CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-56672-en.…) CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-1971-en.p…) SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 1830-1672-en.pdf); and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en… See Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 Criterion 2 definitions and Criterion 2 guidelines at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351- en.pdf) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. companies with the legal form of a GmbH), it does not match or identify the regulatory authorities, courts and other institutions that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A."); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e…) (where community is defined to include tangentially related industries, applied-for string name of "TAXI" fails to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities that are included in the defined community); IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e…) (applied for string identifies only the name of the core community members (primary and secondary real estate members), but fails to identify peripheral industries and entities described as part of the community by the applicant and does not match the defined community); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.…) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. artists and organized members of the arts community) it does not match or identify the art supporters that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A" such as "audiences, consumers, and donors"); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e…) (concluding that although applied-for string identifies the core community members—kids—it fails to closely describe other community members such as parents, who are not commonly known as "kids"); MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) (applied for string is over inclusive, identifying more individuals than are included in the defined community); GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) (the applied for string refers to a large group of individuals – all gay people worldwide – of which the community as defined by the applicant is only a part); and GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) (applied-for string "GAY" is commonly used to refer to men and women who identify as homosexual but not necessarily to others in the defined community).134 See, e.g., KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- 46695-en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1- 1097-20833-en.pdf); and IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immocpe-1-1000-62742-en… HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- en.pdf) ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1- 1115-14110-en.pdf); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radiocpe-1-1083-39123-… Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pgs. 4-12-4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… See, e.g., ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314- en.pdf) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or well-known name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own).138 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf) (applied-for string "HOTEL" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a wellknown name for other members of the community such as hotel marketing associations that are only related to hotels); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) (concluding that because the community defined in the application is a collection of many categories of individuals and organizations, there is no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus, but that partial points may be awarded because the string "MUSIC" identifies all member categories, and successfully identifies the individuals and organizations included in the applicant's defined community); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or wellknown name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.…) (applied-for string "ART" identifies defined community, but, given the subjective meaning of what constitutes art, general public may not associate all members of the broadly defined community with the applied-for string); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- 39123-en.pdf) (applied-for string "RADIO" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a well-known name for other members of the community such as companies providing specific services that are only related to radio).139 See, e.g., MUSIC (DotMusic Limited) CPE Report ( https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110… OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- en.pdf); and SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf).141 SPA CPE Report at Pg. 4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- en.pdf); and OSAKA CPE Report at Pgs. 3-4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osakacpe-1-901-9391-en… SPA CPE Report at Pgs. 4-5 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309- 81322-en.pdf).Jeff NeumanSenior Vice PresidentCom Laude | ValideusD: +1.703.635.7514E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary GuidelinesGood afternoon Working Group membersOn the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures.My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published.1-A DelineationPage 4: “Delineation”The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system.Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU?2-A Nexus“Identify”The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus.My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community.The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths.1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197)2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197)What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc).This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community.The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football).Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction.Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community.4-B Opposition“Relevance”As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round.To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.CheersJamieJamie Baxterdotgay LLCjamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/>A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/>and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PMTo: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary GuidelinesAll,I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf”One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear.Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities.We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call.Best regards,Jeff NeumanSenior Vice PresidentCom Laude | ValideusD: +1.703.635.7514E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily BarabasSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019Dear Working Group members,Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB.Kind regards,EmilyNotes and Action Items:Action Item:ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdfNotes…. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f…. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic.3. AOB * None.________________________________The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediat

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Dear group,let's look at examples:In WT5 any "additional protections" for non-capital city names where very skillfully rejected by a tiny group of lobbyists. The tenor was that no geo-community would need AGB protections OUTSIDE the ALREADY existing community priority application benefits. "If you are a city community - simply apply as community priority application; and you are fine ...." they said.OK for me as all my next round applications will be community owned, funded & governed, public-benefit, non-profit, restricted applications.But!Just take "BERLIN". Imagine it wasn't a capital city (and it wasn't between 1945 and 1990) and it wouldn't be already a gTLD.Would a .berlin pass CPE? Obviously you needed tons of support (which we had from an over-abundance of associations and chambers, the city Government, etc.).Osaka did pass - and I am still amazed how; if you compare the .gay and the .osaka applications and CPEs.Are Berliners "card carrying" members of the "Berlin community"? If somebody hears "Berlin": do they ONLY think about Berlin, capial of Germany - or maybe about the few tiny Berlins in the U.S. (the biggest having about 10k people)? I just want to prevent that WT5 tells city applicants to go for community priority - but then we keep the CPE provisions in a way that it's not possible to ever score high enough - especially if your competition is massively influencing the evaluators - like it happened with .gay (but NOT with .osaka). Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Date: 10/15/19 04:58 (GMT+02:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A Hey Jeff“Identify” as noted in the first paragraph of the FTI report language you included below remains at issue and still needs clarity based on how it is defined in the AGB. I believe I have already articulated how the AGB definition of “identify” has two possible paths to success, yet the CPE Guidelines and the FTI report remain silent on acknowledging the two options baked into the AGB. Neither elaborates on the EIU’s interpretation of “identify,” however some CPE results suggest that the “applied for string closely describes the community” was not an acceptable interpretation for the EIU.  It needs to be perfectly clear if the CPE providers will be required to accept that “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” This means that in subsequent procedures the CPE providers will not be permitted to require both, and both paths must remain an option for the applicant to receive points.Jamie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Mon, October 14, 2019 4:54 pm To: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> #wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"Avenir Book"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Muli; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Kalinga;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} #wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;} #wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;} #wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} #wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoListParagraph, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoListParagraph, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoListParagraph {mso-style-priority:34; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} #wmQuoteWrapper p.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper li.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper div.msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle22 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle23 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle24 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle25 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle26 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle28 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle29 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle30 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle31 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle32 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle33 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle34 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle35 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle36 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} #</body></html>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Emily Barabas Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Hi Anne and everyone, For those unable to use Google sheets, you can insert comments on the attached excel document and send to the mailing list. Staff will add the comments to the Google sheet. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 00:43 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Dean Marks (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com) (deansmarks(a)yahoo.com)" <deansmarks(a)yahoo.com>, "Flip Petillion (fpetillion(a)petillion.law)" <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Subject: [Ext] RE: CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A Thanks Jeff, COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATIONS Regarding Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) and adopting the attached EIU guidelines for CPE evaluation for the next round, could you please remind me whether we solicited public comment on your proposal that the WG adopt the attached EIU guidelines for the next round? (Sorry – I don’t recall discussing this point system specifically in the Work Track 3 phone calls but that was a while ago.) I agree with Jamie that the EIU Guidelines definition of “significant opposition” needs clarification. It would be good to develop some modified language about “balancing” support for and opposition against the community application as suggested on the call and as reflected by Steve Chan in the document. It’s unclear to me how the system of “extra points” discussed on the call would work in relation to the purpose of the Community Application? In relation to further discussion of issues from the October 10 call, I note on behalf of IPC that economic communities were expressly included in the 2012 round policy work. In order to delete the economic communities from the definition (as suggested by the Council of Europe), we would need a consensus which we do not have. So we assume that economic communities remain eligible. (This topic was also discussed in Work Track 3 calls.) Here, I think it’s important to keep in mind that some developing nations utilize economic development corporations to pull together a plan to improve their economies or regions. I don’t think anyone would want to exclude the ability of such a development corporation to be eligible for a community priority evaluation. Oftentimes these development corporations can be formed after natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes in order to promote funding and redevelopment efforts. Further, keeping the eligibility for economic communities supports the new gTLD Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression. APPEAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO ICANN ORG DECISIONS, THIRD PARTY EVALUATIONS, OBJECTION PANEL RULINGS, AND COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION DETERMINATIONS Regarding the appeals chart at the link below, it’s not clear how to register comments. Can you please clarify? (Internal guidelines do not permit me to log in to a Google document.) Since we cannot edit the document, where and how do we enter our comments? Appeals Chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> Second Question: Regarding the possible appeal of a CPE determination, are we saying that those with standing to contest that initial CPE determination and file an appeal (either way) would be in a position to lodge a point-by-point challenge to the exact number of points given or not given in connection with the EIU guidelines for scoring as shown in the attachment? (I just need to know this in order to review with IPC.) So, by way of example, say I’m in a string contention set with a CPE application and that application is awarded community status and I then argue that for each of the ten subcriteria in the EIU guidelines, the alleged Community should have been given fewer points or 0 points than it actually received. Is that the type of appeal we are contemplating? And isn’t it likely that the CPE would ALWAYS be challenged by any competing applications that were not community based? How would “extra points” given in relation to the purpose of the Community Application be weighed in the appeals process? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 1:54 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Here is the information for Category 2-A Nexus from the FTI Review Report. Let us know if wording needs to change. Nexus: Category 2-A To receive a partial score of two points for Nexus,129 the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the Applicant Guidebook, "'Identify' means that the applied-for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community."130 In order to receive the maximum score of three points, the applied-for string must: (i) "identify" the community; and (ii) match the name of the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community. FTI observed that the CPE Provider determined that the applications underlying 19 CPE reports received zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion because, in the CPE Provider's determination, the applications failed to satisfy both of the requirements described above. First, for the applications underlying 11 of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider determined that the appliedfor string did not identify the community because it substantially overreached the community as defined in the application by indicating a wider or related community of which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant's community.131, 132 Second, for the applications underlying eight of the 19 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider found that the applied-for string did not match the name of the community or was not a well-known short form or abbreviation. In this regard, the CPE Provider determined that, although the string identified the name of the core community members, it failed to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities included in the definition of the community set forth in the application. Therefore, there was a misalignment between the proposed string and the proposed community.133 In several cases, the CPE Provider's conclusion that the string did not identify the entire community was the consequence of the CPE Provider's finding that the proposed community was not clearly delineated because it described a dispersed or unbound group of persons or entities.134 Without a clearly delineated community, the CPE Provider concluded that the one-word string could not adequately identify the community. Five CPE reports recorded two points for the Nexus sub-criterion.135 FTI observed that these CPE reports recorded partial points because the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications satisfied only the two-point requirement for Nexus: the applied-for string must identify the community.136 The CPE Provider determined that, although the applied-for string identified the proposed community as defined in the application, it did not "match" the name of the community nor constitute a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name.137 Specifically, the CPE Provider concluded that, for the applications underlying these five CPE reports, the community definition encompassed individuals or entities that were tangentially related to the proposed community as defined in the application and therefore, the general public may not necessarily associate all of the members of the defined community with the string.138 Thus, for these applications, there was no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus.139 For all CPE reports that did not record the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion, the CPE Provider's rationale was based on the definition of the community as defined in the application.139 Two CPE reports recorded the full three points for the Nexus sub-criterion.140 The CPE Provider determined that the applied-for string in the applications underlying these two CPE reports was closely aligned with the community as defined in the application,141 and/or was the established name by which the community is commonly known by others.142 129 The Applicant Guidebook does not provide for one point to be awarded for the Nexus sub-criterion. An application only may receive two points or three points for the Nexus sub-criterion. 130 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/stringcontention-procedures-04… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>). 131 MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714-en.… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723-696… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-7217-e… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-1702-73085… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-56672-en.… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-1971-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 1830-1672-en.pdf); and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>). 132 See Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 Criterion 2 definitions and Criterion 2 guidelines at Pg. 4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>). 133 GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. companies with the legal form of a GmbH), it does not match or identify the regulatory authorities, courts and other institutions that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A."); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (where community is defined to include tangentially related industries, applied-for string name of "TAXI" fails to match or identify the peripheral industries and entities that are included in the defined community); IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (applied for string identifies only the name of the core community members (primary and secondary real estate members), but fails to identify peripheral industries and entities described as part of the community by the applicant and does not match the defined community); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) ("While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. artists and organized members of the arts community) it does not match or identify the art supporters that are included in the definition of the community as described in Criterion 1-A" such as "audiences, consumers, and donors"); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (concluding that although applied-for string identifies the core community members—kids—it fails to closely describe other community members such as parents, who are not commonly known as "kids"); MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (applied for string is over inclusive, identifying more individuals than are included in the defined community); GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (the applied for string refers to a large group of individuals – all gay people worldwide – of which the community as defined by the applicant is only a part); and GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (applied-for string "GAY" is commonly used to refer to men and women who identify as homosexual but not necessarily to others in the defined community). 134 See, e.g., KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 46695-en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 1097-20833-en.pdf); and IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immocpe-1-1000-62742-en… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>). 135 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf) ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 1115-14110-en.pdf); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radiocpe-1-1083-39123-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>). 136 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pgs. 4-12-4-13 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>). 137 See, e.g., ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or well-known name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own). 138 HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf) (applied-for string "HOTEL" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a wellknown name for other members of the community such as hotel marketing associations that are only related to hotels); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (concluding that because the community defined in the application is a collection of many categories of individuals and organizations, there is no "established name" for the applied-for string to match, as required by the Applicant Guidebook for a full score on Nexus, but that partial points may be awarded because the string "MUSIC" identifies all member categories, and successfully identifies the individuals and organizations included in the applicant's defined community); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (concluding that string "ECO" identifies community of environmentally responsible organizations, but is not a match or wellknown name because the various organizations in the defined community are generally identified by use of the word "environment" or by words related to "eco" but not by "eco" itself or on its own); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>) (applied-for string "ART" identifies defined community, but, given the subjective meaning of what constitutes art, general public may not associate all members of the broadly defined community with the applied-for string); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 39123-en.pdf) (applied-for string "RADIO" identifies core members of the defined community but is not a well-known name for other members of the community such as companies providing specific services that are only related to radio). 139 See, e.g., MUSIC (DotMusic Limited) CPE Report ( https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>). 140 OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf); and SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf). 141 SPA CPE Report at Pg. 4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> en.pdf); and OSAKA CPE Report at Pgs. 3-4 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osakacpe-1-901-9391-en… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…>). 142 SPA CPE Report at Pgs. 4-5 (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de…> 81322-en.pdf). Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines Good afternoon Working Group members On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures. My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published. 1-A Delineation Page 4: “Delineation” The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system. Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU? 2-A Nexus “Identify” The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus. My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community. The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths. 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197) 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197) What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc). This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community. The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football). Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction. Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community. 4-B Opposition “Relevance” As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy. Cheers Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com [dotgay.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dotgay.com_&d=DwMGa…> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com [facebook.dotgay.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.dotgay.com…> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_dotgay&…> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMGaQ&…> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Dem…> Virus-free. www.avast.com [avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Dem…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE Supplementary Guidelines: Nexus 2-A
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE: Supplementary Guidelines: Delineation
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

1 0

CPE: Supplementary Guidelines: Delineation
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Jamie, Thanks for your comments. If ok, I will take these one at a time. First Delineation. Here is the information you have requested. Please let me know what you think may need to be included in the Guidelines from this explanation. The Review Report done in 2017 by FTI, stated the following: Clearly Delineated. Two conditions must be met for a community to be clearly delineated: (i) there must be a clear, straightforward membership definition; and (ii) there must be awareness and recognition of a community as defined by the application among its members.87 FTI observed that "a clear and straightforward membership" definition was deemed to be sufficiently demonstrated where membership could be determined through formal registration, certification, or accreditation (i.e., license, certificate of registration, etc.).88 This was the case even if the CPE Provider found the community definition to be broad.89 On the other hand, the CPE Provider determined that a community definition did not demonstrate a "clear and straightforward membership" if it was too broadly defined in the application and could not be determined through formal registration, or was "unbound and dispersed" because the community may not resonate with all stakeholders that it seeks to represent.90 The CPE Provider also determined that a community definition showed a clear and straightforward membership where the membership was dependent on having a clear connection to a defined geographic area.91 FTI observed that the CPE Provider determined that there was "awareness and recognition of a community as defined by the application among its members" where membership could be determined through formal registration, certification, or accreditation (i.e., license, certificate of registration, etc.).92 On the other hand, the CPE Provider determined that the community as defined in the application did not have awareness and recognition among its members if the affiliated businesses and sectors had only a tangential relationship with the core community. In those instances, the CPE Provider found that the affiliated businesses and sectors would not associate themselves with the community as defined.93 The CPE Provider also determined that commonality of interest was not enough to satisfy the "awareness and recognition of a community" element because it did not provide substantive evidence of what the Applicant Guidebook defines as "cohesion." 94 The applications underlying the 12 CPE reports that recorded two points, and the one CPE report that recorded one point satisfied both aspects of the clearly delineated prong of the Delineation sub-criterion: the applications demonstrated a "clear and straightforward membership" of community and an "awareness and recognition of a community as defined by the application among its members.”95 Of the applications underlying the 13 CPE reports that recorded zero points for the clearly delineated prong of the Delineation sub-criterion, six did not satisfy either element for the clearly delineated prong.96 The applications underlying the seven CPE reports that recorded zero points for the clearly delineated prong were determined to have demonstrated a "clear and straightforward membership" of community, but failed to demonstrate an "awareness and recognition of a community as defined by the application among its members." 97 The applications underlying all 13 of the CPE reports that recorded zero points failed to satisfy the "awareness" element of the clearly delineated prong of the Delineation sub-criterion. Footnotes 85 One CPE report recorded one point. See RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083-39123…) 86 Thirteen CPE reports recorded zero points. See IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e…) TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e…) GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351-e…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.…) ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.…) KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e…) MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en…) SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 1830-1672-en.pdf); and MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) 87 Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-11 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/stringcontention-procedures-04…) 88 The CPE Provider determined that six of the 13 applications that received zero points for the Delineation sub-criterion were not "clearly delineated" because they did not demonstrate "a clear and straightforward membership." See ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-en.…) GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351-e…) IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742-e…) ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097-20833-en.…) KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-46695-e…) and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en…) 89 See, e.g., TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840- en.pdf); LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) and LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) 90 See Applicant Guidebook, Module 4.2.3 at Pg. 4-11 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-0…) 91 OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- en.pdf);TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723- 69677-en.pdf); CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911- 56672-en.pdf); and CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1- 1744-1971-en.pdf). 92 See, e.g., MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714- en.pdf); GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699- en.pdf); TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723- 69677-en.pdf); CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911- 56672-en.pdf);CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744- 1971-en.pdf); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314- en.pdf); HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf); and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- 39123-en.pdf). 93 See, e.g., IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000- 62742-en.pdf); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025- 18840-en.pdf); INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979- en.pdf); LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) and LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) 94 See, e.g., ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675- 51302-en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1- 1097-20833-en.pdf); and KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1- 1309-46695-en.pdf). 95 OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe-1-901-9391- en.pdf); TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-1723- 69677-en.pdf); MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-47714- en.pdf); HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-1032-95136- en.pdf); ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.p…) GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-81322-en.…) CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-56672-en.…) CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-1971-en.p…) MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-1702-73085…) MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-7217-e…) and RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083-39123- en.pdf). 96 IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-62742- en.pdf); GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-63351- en.pdf); ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- en.pdf); ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1097- 20833-en.pdf); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- 46695-en.pdf); and SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shopcpe-1-890-52063-en.…) 97 TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-18840-e…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-1115-14110…) MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046- en.pdf); and SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-1830-1672-en…) Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines Good afternoon Working Group members On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures. My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published. 1-A Delineation Page 4: “Delineation” The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system. Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU? 2-A Nexus “Identify” The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus. My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community. The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths. 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197) 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197) What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc). This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community. The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football). Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction. Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community. 4-B Opposition “Relevance” As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy. Cheers Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Dear working group;I second Jamie's concerns.Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Date: 10/11/19 19:41 (GMT+02:00) To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines Good afternoon Working Group members On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures. My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published. 1-A Delineation Page 4: “Delineation”The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system. Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU? 2-A Nexus “Identify”The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus. My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community. The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths. 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197)2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197) What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc). This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community. The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football). Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction. Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community. 4-B Opposition “Relevance” As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy. CheersJamie Jamie Baxterdotgay LLCjamie(a)dotgay.comwww.dotgay.com A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.comand follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PMTo: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff NeumanSenior Vice President Com Laude | ValideusD: +1.703.635.7514E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily BarabasSent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards,Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest No SOI updatesFollowing up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community ApplicationsPolicy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available.CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures.Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook?Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic?ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdfBy including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators.As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures.Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. Review of comments on the definition of community. One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority.Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists.Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable.Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest.Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG.Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time.Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available.Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further.One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency.Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications.Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count.Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold.Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance.Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria.Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community.Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic.3. AOBNone. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com Virus-free. www.avast.com

2 1

Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 8 2. Private Resolution of Contention Sets -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 14 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

5 4

Karen Lentz
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

All, I want welcome Karen Lentz to the Working Group from ICANN's GDD. She is taking over for the work that was previously done by Trang. We have been told that Trang has moved on to pursue other interests and of course we want to thank Trang for her service and wish Trang well in all her future endeavors. For those who may not know Karen, she has been with ICANN for many years and was instrumental in the implementation of the 2012 Round of New gTLDs. Although Karen is coming up to speed on our work, we have no doubt that she will be an incredible asset to our group from day 1. Welcome Karen! Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D57FAB.11C33A80] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Zoom security update
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/zoom-security-update · Author: Ashwin Rangan, SVP Engineering & Chief Information Officer · 10 Oct 2019 · · Zoom recently added new settings to increase security and ensure meeting privacy. These new settings will enforce a password on all new meetings scheduled, but will not affect meetings that have been scheduled prior to 29 September 2019. The only participants who will be required to enter a password are those who join a meeting via the Zoom app and manually type in the meeting ID. Participants who join a meeting via a link in a calendar or e-mail invitation will not be required to enter the password upon joining, as it is included in the URL by default. To learn more about the new settings, please visit the Zoom Help Center and read the FAQ here<https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360033331271>. At the recommendation of ICANN’s internal InfoSec team, these new settings will be enabled immediately. Because the vast majority of ICANN meeting participants join via invitation links, we expect the impact on community members and staff to be minimal. Please reply here or contact the Meetings Technical Services team directly at mts(a)icann.org<mailto:mts@icann.org> if you have any questions or concerns regarding this update. Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar<https://features.icann.org/calendar> Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019
by Emily Barabas Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None.

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/m4oCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2019

Oct. 8, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Accountability Mechanisms -- Evaluation Procedures: Background Screening: ACTION ITEM 1: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match, for WG comment. CPE: ACTION ITEM 2: Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org. ACTION ITEM 3: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided 2. Review of summary documents: a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? See also: concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKV… -- This is an aid to help everyone. It is not a final document. WG members can make comments during the call and afterwards. Evaluation Procedures: -- Add line 13 -- CPE Background Screening: -- Should there be a panel of experts? For string similarity they were farmed out to do the background screen. -- In this case we don’t know if there could be some kind of standing panel. -- Not sure how prescriptive the WG should be. But the Individual Evaluator who made the decision probably shouldn’t be the one that reviews the appeal. -- For background screening, Applicant for identical string should also have a right to appeal. There was no mechanism for this in the last round and ICANN ignored objections when someone passed who should not have passed under the clear language of the AGB. If contention sets are done before screening then anyone in a contention set should have the right to appeal. -- Doesn’t that open every single applicant up to an additional layer of delay by contestants? -- Does it mean that an applicant has to pay for bad work of the screeners of the first wave?  --  Evaluators should be INDIVIDUALS with recognized personal expertise. -- If it is loser pays that addresses concerns about frivolous appeals. -- Real life example: CPE that had to be done a second time for .gay. In that case .gay didn’t pay, not sure who did. -- How would a member of the public have access to the private portions of the application? (How would a private party challenge that application?) -- Not all background information is private -- We’re talking about background screening. It seems like clear parameters (felony, x number of UDRP losses, etc) should be established so it is not subjective. -- Appeal would be on one of the publicly known data points. -- This is a concern for .brands, but not just .brands. ACTION: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match. CPE: -- Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org. ACTION: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14. Objections: String Confusion Objection: -- Question: What’s the difference between the appeals that are allowed for string similarity? Answer: The string similarity evaluation as the way it was in 2012 was a strictly visual evaluation. That was a pass/fail. If the application failed the evaluation then it was thrown out (if similar to another string). If similar to another application then it was thrown into a contention set. The string confusion is a broader analysis, looking at other factors other than just visual. It’s between the applicant and an existing TLD objector or another applicant objector. It’s an appellate process if the existing objector believes that the evaluator got it wrong. In 2012 if it was decided that a string was in a contention set there was not way for an applicant to appeal being put in a contention set as there were no grounds for objection. -- When .unicorn and .unicom where put in the same contention set there was no appeal for that or objection. -- In the case shown in the matrix, .unicorn or .unicom could appeal. -- Doesn't this mean that contention sets need to be done very early so that any contention set folks can use the string similarity objectioner string non-similarity objection? Yes. Legal Rights Objection: -- Questions: 1) Weren’t we trying to come up with narrowly tailored appeals? 2) how much consideration has been given to the 15 days? Answer: For this charter whatever grounds we decide on for Legal Rights Objections are used, and we are just talking about appeals. We haven’t decided if there should a de novo review or where something is clearly erroneous where the panel made a mistake. Still need to decide the burden of proof/standard. Also need to decide what the timeline must be, 15 days is just an example/placeholder. Could a be notice of appeal in 10 days and a brief within 20 days. Limited Public Interest Objection: -- Included ALAC because their fees are covered by ICANN. -- On the last call we talked about options for applicants. On the last call some people did not agree that the Independent Objector should have a right to an appeal due to costs. Did the Work Track discussing this issue provide any guidance? Did not think there was enough support to get rid of the IO and didn’t think there would be anyone else who would have the will to file an appeal. WT3 decided to keep the IO but there were no discussions on appeals. -- Question: Do we want ICANN and Contracted Parties to pay for the IO to be able to appeal a decision? -- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. -- If the IO fails is there another objection that can be used? Depends on whether there are mechanisms under the Bylaws, also the GAC could file advice, and any third party that filed the initial objection could appeal, but who pays the costs? -- IO should have the same rights of appeal. -- If appeals are designed to counter panelist mistakes then it does appear to discriminate against IO objections . -- Add back in that the IO can appeal under user pays (which would be ICANN). -- ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by ICANN. -- Still there that whether it is a team of IOs -- we said that there should be multiple IOs. We use it in the singular, but it could be a team. If there is a team, then there would not have to be an appeal. -- But what if the IO team made a mistake? -- In the previous discussion there were no objections to ALAC making an appeal, but there were to ICANN funding it. That makes no sense because there is no ALAC as such without ICANN. ALAC will provide a statement. -- Talked about budgets for IOs -- if they have the budget to go to appeal they IOs should be able to take that into account. Budget should be scaled to applications. Community Objection: -- Should increase the number of days to file -- 15-20 days for notice of appeal, and 45 days to file the appeal. -- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. Conflict of Interest of Panelist: -- Question: In the Chamber of Commerce you can challenge an arbitrator as soon as you know. If the issue has already been heard we don’t want to encourage anyone to wait? Answer: They should go through the normal conflict process, and then if they disagree with that decision then they could appeal it. It is appealing the decision of the entity who made the decision on conflicts. -- What about 15 days from when the appealing party has knowledge of the conflict. Conflicts aren't always known up front.  -- Interlocatory means before a decision is made in the case.

3 4

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/mYoCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 2. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 8 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, There is one additional document that we will reference on the call today, which fleshes out some concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 3 October 2019 at 23:53 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lYoCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0