December 2024 - SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ext] RE: Reserved and Blocked Names List Terminology
by Michael Karakash Jan. 28, 2025

Jan. 28, 2025

Hi Ashley, Thank you for your follow-up question, and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. After some discussion, we believe the best approach is to bring this topic up during a future IRT call after the holidays. This will help ensure we’re aligned on our understanding and can confirm that the policy recommendations have been accurately reflected in all relevant draft AGB sections. In the meantime, if you have any additional questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 at 7:15 AM To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Reserved and Blocked Names List Terminology Hi Michael, It was nice to meet you briefly in Istanbul. Thank you for the helpful clarification below, but it raises a follow up question. The readjusting of these definitions appears to have broadened the scope of stings which are subject to string similarity comparison. In the 2012 round I believe only the following categories of string were subject to string similarity comparison with an applied-for string: * Existing TLDs * Other applied-for strings * Applied-for IDN ccTLDs * Reserved Names (which only included the 34 reserved names listed on page 60 here [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/g…>) It now appears that other categories which were not subject to string similarity in 2012 will be subject to string similarity in the next round, including, country and territory names, 3 letter country codes, and IOC/Red Cross names. Was the scope intentionally broadened to include these other categories (and if so, did the change come from specific policy recommendations?) or is that an oversight caused by the readjustment of the definitions of Reserved and Blocked Names? I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if you need me to clarify my question. Many thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 [cid:image001.png@01DB5081.4E79CCD0] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8-QoYWwZEaks9g…> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADD…> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADD…> From: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Sent: 09 November 2024 10:26 To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com> Cc: subpro-irt(a)icann.org Subject: Reserved and Blocked Names List Terminology You don't often get email from michael.karakash(a)icann.org<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org>. Learn why this is important [aka.ms]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification__;…> [Note: Including the SubPro IRT in this reply for transparency, as this information could be helpful to others] Dear Ashley, Thank you for your questions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify how the new definitions of "Reserved Names" and "Blocked Names" interact with string similarity rules under the updated Applicant Guidebook. Reserved Names and Blocked Names Redefined: As you’ve noted, the terminology has been adjusted from the 2012 Guidebook. Specifically: * In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, what was termed the “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” is now referred to as the Reserved Names List. * The list previously called the “Top-Level Reserved Names List” is now referred to as the Blocked Names List. In the most recent version of the Blocked and Reserved Names AGB draft<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_2024-09-05_U…> which you find on the IRT Community Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR>, you can see the clarifying language we’ve added. It states: “Note: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, the list called “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” is now referred to as the Reserved Names List, and the list previously called the “Top-Level Reserved Names List” is now known as the Blocked Names List.” In response to the questions in your email, the string similarity rules apply to all Reserved Names and Blocked Names listed in the table in the current AGB document. This means that: * Any applied-for gTLD string, or any of its variant strings, will not proceed if it is found to be similar to any name in the Reserved Names List or Blocked Names List. * However, there is an exception as noted in the draft String Similarity Review AGB language<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents?preview=/3154…>: “If the applied-for gTLD string is a variant of a Reserved Name and the applicant is the Reserved Name entity itself, then the application can proceed with the evaluation as a variant gTLD of that Reserved Name.” As noted on the table, the only strings that are Reserved Names in the Next Round are Limited International IGO INGOs. * As a reminder, the variant of reserved name can only be applied for if the actual reserved name string is also applied for. Language in the draft IDN AGB language<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents?preview=/3154…> states: “An application for an allocatable variant gTLD cannot precede an application for its primary IDN gTLD.” I hope this clarifies how the terms "Reserved Name" and "Blocked Name" are now used in the AGB and confirms the scope of string similarity evaluation for all names included in these lists. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have further questions or if there’s anything more we can assist with. Thank you! Best, Michael Original email: From: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>> Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 11:23 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Reserved Names List Dear Lars, We are already speaking to clients that are exploring applying for a TLD in the next round so we are beginning to carry out due diligence on the strings they are interested in. In going through the new string similarity rules it wasn’t clear to me what comprised the Reserved Names list referenced in point 6 on page 3 [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…> of the rules so I wonder if you can please clarify? In the 2012 round the only Reserved Names which were subject to string similarity (as opposed to exact match blocking) were those on the ICANN reserved list, which consisted of 34 strings (see page 60 [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/g…>). Other categories of term were blocked from application but were not subject to string similarity. This included country names, IOC and RC names, and 3 letter country codes. So something like FRANCE was blocked from registration but anything confusingly similar to that was fine. Under the new AGB language it seems as though what were termed “reserved names” and “blocked names” in 2012 have been re-categorised. According to the table in this AGB section [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names…>, the only terms which are Reserved Names are the IOC/RC/IGO names; everything else is considered a Blocked Name. Based on this categorisation, that would mean the only “reserved names” that are subject to string similarity are the IOC/RC/IGO names. However, that doesn’t seem right. Alternatively, if I assume all Reserved Names and Blocked Names in the table are subject to string similarity that would include country names and 3 letter country codes in that review, which also doesn’t seem right. This is making me wonder if there is an inconsistency with the use of the terms “reserved name” and “blocked name” across these different sections of the AGB. Can I ask you to kindly clarify: * Whether all categories in this table [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names…> are subject to string similarity rules, or * Whether only some of the categories in the table are subject to string similarity rules (and if so, which categories) Apologies that I didn’t pick this up during the recent public comment period. Many thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy [cid77860*image001.png(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410][comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4gFLQnHfBUnOwh…> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4gFLQnHfBUnOwhf…> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADD…> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADD…> [cid77860*image002.png(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410][linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude__;!!P…> [cid77860*image003.png(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410] [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en__;!!PtGJab4…> [cid77860*image004.png(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410] [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/ComLaude/__;!!PtGJab4!4…> [cid77860*image005.png(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410] [youtube.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/@comlaude__;!!PtGJab4!4g…> [cid77860*image006.jpg(a)01DB2ABF.C4D62410] ________________________________ 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4gFLQnHfBUnOwh…> ________________________________ 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8-QoYWwZEaks9g…>

2 1

Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications
by Jared Erwin Jan. 24, 2025

Jan. 24, 2025

Dear IRT Members, Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications: * Draft AGB Section (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1K…> * Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%…> * Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_C…> * Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU…> * Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Comm…> For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant. This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: * Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment * Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. * Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” * Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” * Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” * Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion. We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025. Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin(a)icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>

2 4

IN ONE HOUR | SubPro IRT Meeting #100 | 19 December 2024, 19:00-21:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Dec. 19, 2024

Dec. 19, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #100 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 19 December 2024 at 19:00-21:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/4v2m5dw8>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/igEiFg>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Elisa

1 0

Re: Third Public Comment Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round AGB
by Samantha Mancia Dec. 19, 2024

Dec. 19, 2024

Apologies, typo on close date corrected below to 7 February 2025. Kind Regards, Samantha Mancia Project Manager, New gTLD Program Team Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Office Telephone: +1 310 301 5800 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: Samantha Mancia via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Samantha Mancia <samantha.mancia(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2024 at 7:57 AM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Third Public Comment Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round AGB Hello IRT members, I am writing to let you know that today we launched the third Public Comment proceeding for proposed language for draft sections of the Next Round AGB. This includes the following AGB sections: * Community Input and Dispute Resolution * Application Comments (Topic 28: Role of Application Comment) * GAC Member Early Warnings (Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning) * GAC Advice (Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning) * Singular/Plural Notification (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) * Objections (Topic 31: Objections and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism) * Topic 31: Objections and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism * ICANN Dispute Resolution Procedure * ICANN Objection Appeals Procedure * New gTLD Program: Next Round Privacy Policy * Post-Contracting * DNS Stability * Security and Stability (Topic 26: Security and Stability) * Different TLD Types (Topic 4: Different TLD Types) * Legal Compliance Check The Public Comment will remain open until 7 February 2025. We encourage you to liaise with your constituencies and networks to review and provide input via the Public Comment process. Here is the link to the proceeding: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/third-proceeding-for-pro… Thank you. Kind Regards, Samantha Mancia Project Manager, New gTLD Program Team Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Office Telephone: +1 310 301 5800 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Third Public Comment Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round AGB
by Samantha Mancia Dec. 19, 2024

Dec. 19, 2024

Hello IRT members, I am writing to let you know that today we launched the third Public Comment proceeding for proposed language for draft sections of the Next Round AGB. This includes the following AGB sections: * Community Input and Dispute Resolution * Application Comments (Topic 28: Role of Application Comment) * GAC Member Early Warnings (Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning) * GAC Advice (Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning) * Singular/Plural Notification (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) * Objections (Topic 31: Objections and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism) * Topic 31: Objections and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism * ICANN Dispute Resolution Procedure * ICANN Objection Appeals Procedure * New gTLD Program: Next Round Privacy Policy * Post-Contracting * DNS Stability * Security and Stability (Topic 26: Security and Stability) * Different TLD Types (Topic 4: Different TLD Types) * Legal Compliance Check The Public Comment will remain open until 7 February 2024. We encourage you to liaise with your constituencies and networks to review and provide input via the Public Comment process. Here is the link to the proceeding: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/third-proceeding-for-pro… Thank you. Kind Regards, Samantha Mancia Project Manager, New gTLD Program Team Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Office Telephone: +1 310 301 5800 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

IN ONE HOUR | SubPro IRT Meeting #99a | 18 December 2024, 19:00-20:30 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Dec. 18, 2024

Dec. 18, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #99a of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 18 December 2024 at 19:00-20:30 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/m723cmvz>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/NAEfFw>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Elisa

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #100 | 19 December 2024, 19:00-21:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Dec. 18, 2024

Dec. 18, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #100 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 19 December 2024 at 19:00-21:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/4v2m5dw8>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/igEiFg>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #99a | 18 December 2024, 19:00-20:30 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Dec. 17, 2024

Dec. 17, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #99a of the SubPro IRT will be held on 18 December 2024 at 19:00-20:30 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/m723cmvz>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/NAEfFw>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Elisa

1 0

Re: [Ext] RE: Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 16, 2024

Dec. 16, 2024

Thanks, Mark. I will check internally what the rationale is for the ticket being sold. I believe there are provisions under the applicable California law but I need to check. Best. Lars From: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> Date: Monday, 16 December 2024 at 18:53 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw Affirmation 19.1 also requires that the ticket be paid for? Why can’t we have a raffle where the ticket is free? This would eliminate a lot of risk. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.gtlaw.com/__;!!PtGJab4!45PRdH9o1SVzA8…> | View GT Biography [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachte…> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DB4FED.6D155680] From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:51 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org>; subpro-irt(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw Dear all, Thank you, Mark, for your feedback. A quick recap: following some initial feedback from the IRT [Mark, if I recall your one of the one’s who spoke up on this point], ICANN org had looked into implementing a solution without the need to buy a ticket. Subsequently, we presented to the IRT a method that would forego the entire raffle idea, based also on implementation guidance 19.2, which suggests “to explore ways to assign a prioritization number during the application process without the need for a distinctly separate drawing event.” Please note, from an org perspective a non-draw would certainly make things easier and reduce costs for the program. However, after presenting this alternative to the IRT (I will try and dig out the recording later), the IRT noted that Affirmation 19.1 requires a repeat of the draw – notwithstanding the guidance of 19.2. Therefore, we (staff) have reverted to the draw as the way to determine prioritization. [Mark, I believe you were not on this particular call]. I hope this is helpful context. Very best. Lars From: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> Date: Monday, 16 December 2024 at 17:52 To: Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw My primary question in case I can’t attend tomorrow is why do we need to include the requirement to purchase a ticket? This is where the legal risk comes from, in particular with respect to the draw being deemed an illegal lottery and/or requiring a permit. I am fine with the concept of a priority draw and making it optional – but there should be no cost to purchasing a ticket. It should not cost much to operate the draw and there will be plenty of application fee money to cover whether incremental cost there is for this. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.gtlaw.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_eAG2HVfSUvWJo…> | View GT Biography [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachte…> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image004.png@01DB4FED.6D155680] From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 9:14 AM To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear all, Please find here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTW…> the proposed language for “Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw”. A pdf version of the document is posted on tomorrow’s meeting page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg__;!!DUT_TFP…>. Best regards, Elisa ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

3 5

Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 16, 2024

Dec. 16, 2024

Dear all, Thank you, Mark, for your feedback. A quick recap: following some initial feedback from the IRT [Mark, if I recall your one of the one’s who spoke up on this point], ICANN org had looked into implementing a solution without the need to buy a ticket. Subsequently, we presented to the IRT a method that would forego the entire raffle idea, based also on implementation guidance 19.2, which suggests “to explore ways to assign a prioritization number during the application process without the need for a distinctly separate drawing event.” Please note, from an org perspective a non-draw would certainly make things easier and reduce costs for the program. However, after presenting this alternative to the IRT (I will try and dig out the recording later), the IRT noted that Affirmation 19.1 requires a repeat of the draw – notwithstanding the guidance of 19.2. Therefore, we (staff) have reverted to the draw as the way to determine prioritization. [Mark, I believe you were not on this particular call]. I hope this is helpful context. Very best. Lars From: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> Date: Monday, 16 December 2024 at 17:52 To: Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw My primary question in case I can’t attend tomorrow is why do we need to include the requirement to purchase a ticket? This is where the legal risk comes from, in particular with respect to the draw being deemed an illegal lottery and/or requiring a permit. I am fine with the concept of a priority draw and making it optional – but there should be no cost to purchasing a ticket. It should not cost much to operate the draw and there will be plenty of application fee money to cover whether incremental cost there is for this. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.gtlaw.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_eAG2HVfSUvWJo…> | View GT Biography [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachte…> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DB4FEB.604253B0] From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 9:14 AM To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear all, Please find here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTW…> the proposed language for “Order of Application Processing and the Prioritization Draw”. A pdf version of the document is posted on tomorrow’s meeting page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg__;!!DUT_TFP…>. Best regards, Elisa ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 1