January 2025 - SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

Re: Post call | SubPro IRT Meetings #100a | 8 January 2025
by Pruis, Elaine Jan. 14, 2025

Jan. 14, 2025

Thanks for this helpful discussion and especially to Jim Galvin for providing SSAC / NCAP report insights. One area we didn’t cover in detail is the Name Collision Observatory access—ICANN folks, since this will be available sometime this spring, could we see proposed licensing agreement language? Given that there will be data applicants review and potentially store and use in mitigation plans, it would be helpful to see what limitations and rights are being considered. Thanks much Elaine From: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 7:10 AM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Post call | SubPro IRT Meetings #100a | 8 January 2025 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, The recording for Meeting #100a of the SubPro IRT held on Wednesday, 8 January 2024 at 13:00-14:00 UTC are published on the meeting wiki page These include: Audio recording Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) Attendance For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives and the main wiki page. Best regards, Renate

4 8

Re: [Ext] RE: Application Queuing
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 14, 2025

Jan. 14, 2025

Hi Marc, Thank you for reaching out on-list. As outlined below, we have considered your request to seek an opinion from the California AG and due to the reason shared below we do not believe this to be a prudent path forward at this stage. As a reminder you made this request in December 2024, so I believe the answer has been timely. As for the request to assess whether the raffle can be replaced by a randomized draw – which was made by the IRT in February 2024 (see link to the recording below), we did consider legal risks and proposed an alternative to the IRT in June 2024 that would not require a raffle, nor a participation fee. We believe that the option presented aligned with our approach to risk for the next round and with implementation guidance 19.2. However, the IRT, in light of Recommendation 19.1 did not support this approach and supported explicitly a repeat of the 2012 process, per recommendation 19.1. Therefore, I do not believe that there are any outstanding requests. In addition, I believe that the implementation as proposed aligns with the recommendation 19.1 in the Final Report. As a reminder, the IRT role is to ensure that the implementation aligns with the wording and intent of the approved recommendation, which, I believe, the proposed language does. If you or others disagree, may I kindly ask to elaborate why that is the case in your view. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> Date: Monday, 13 January 2025 at 21:39 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Application Queuing Lars, Where is the legal opinion/guidance provided to ICANN that members of the IR have been requesting for months. How can we make a decision on this without seeing such guidance? Best regards, 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!8YjJZuJWMJUjK4…> | View GT Biography [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachte…> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DB667D.9AD6B8B0] From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 2:06 PM To: Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Application Queuing *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear all, Tomorrow’s IRT call will largely focus on RVCs, but I would like to kick the call off by talking about the prioritization draw. (note: the call will start at 12:30 UTC tomorrow; 30min earlier than originally scheduled; a reminder went out earlier today). Following the IRT’s discussion in December<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg__;!!DUT_TFP…>, staff made enquiries and held a number of meeting and we would like to propose the implementation path outlined in December and would also like to take it to public comment. Below, I summarized the issue, the background, the proposed implementation path, and the rationale for said path. I would like to address this during tomorrow’s call and field any questions. Thank you and best wishes, Lars PS: the information below is also attached as a PDF. Application Queuing - Path Forward. Issue * How to determine the priority of applications during the next round of ICANN’s new gTLD program. In other words, how to implement recommendation 19.1 and implementation guidance 19.2 from the Final Report. Background * Consistent with Recommendation 19.1, in February 2024<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/HoCtEQ__;!!DUT_TFP…>, ICANN org proposed to implement the prioritization draw inline with the approach that occurred in 2012, with the addition of some logistical/operational improvements. The IRT members participating in the call did not support a repeat of the prioritization draw and instead asked ICANN org to explore ways to avoid the need for a draw and to randomize the prioritization process. * In June 2024<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/xYBAEw__;!!DUT_TFP…>, ICANN org proposed to forgo the draw and, based on SubPro Final Report implementation Guidance 19.2, use an alternative method to determine processing priority. The approach was intended to address the risks associated with the relevant anti-lottery regulations while efficiently assigning priority processing numbers consistent with the policy recommendation. * During the June meeting, IRT members participating in the call then insisted that, based on recommendation 19.1, ICANN had to repeat the draw from 2012. * In December 2024<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg__;!!DUT_TFP…>, ICANN org presented a revised version of the process<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTW…> originally presented during step 2 above, which included a live draw, broadcast virtually but without a public, in person event, as was the case in 2012. See google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTWNUpBK_Bu_Xksd7sw6-R6MhLDKhD…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTW…> . * During the same December 2024 call, some IRT members then asked to change the nature of the draw, from a raffle to a randomized draw, forgoing the raffle fee, and thereby possibly avoiding any risks that the application fee could be regarded as the raffle-entry fee. IRT members also asked ICANN to obtain an opinion from the California AG on the risks of alternative ways to determine priority. Implementation Path * ICANN will implement the draw as presented to the IRT in December 2024<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg__;!!DUT_TFP…>, based on recommendation 19.1. ICANN remains open to explore alternatives to the draw, as laid out in June 2024<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/xYBAEw__;!!DUT_TFP…>, however, due to the timeline, such a decision needs to be made by the IRT no later than 8 February 2025. Rationale * The proposed approach aligns with the wording and intent of recommendation 19.1. The PDP WG discussed this issue and did not recommend any fundamental changes to the 2012 process. ICANN org has already provided an alternative prioritization method to the IRT (aligning with implementation guidance 19.2) that would not rely on a raffle/draw but that option was not acceptable to the IRT. * One of the largest cost factors of the 2012 round was risk mitigation. Therefore, ICANN has taken the approach to minimize risks that could lead to increases in costs (ultimately born by applicants) and/or may impact the program’s timeline. ICANN org believes that a conservative approach to risk when it comes to the prioritization is important so not to place the program, or ICANN more generally, at risk of running an illegal lottery, e.g.: * The application fee could be regarded as the raffle fee and thus ICANN may have to donate 90% of the application fee. * Someone might bring a claim that the prioritization draw did not comply with California Penal Code 320.5<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_d…>. * We considered the request to ask for an opinion from California’s AG. Note that the California AG is statutorily limited to offering opinions to certain public officials, and is prohibited from offering opinions to private citizens like ICANN. The California AG takes the position that, under its statutory authority to issue opinions, it “may give opinions only to these specified public officials, and not to private citizens or to public officials who are not listed in the statute.” Cal. Att’y Gen., Legal Opinions of the Attorney General – Opinion Unit, https://oag.ca.gov/opinions [oag.ca.gov]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/oag.ca.gov/opinions__;!!PtGJab4!6b3kLvKX…>; see Cal. Gov’t Code § 12519 (listing specific public officials to whom “[t]he Attorney General shall give the Attorney General’s opinion”). ________________________________ 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

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #102 | 14 January 2025, 12:30-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Jan. 14, 2025

Jan. 14, 2025

PLEASE NOTE EARLIER START TO THIS MEETING – 12H30 UTC Dear All, Meeting #102 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 14 January 2025 at 12:30-14:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5n6ueu68__;!!PtGJab4!7b6BgKV…>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/QgCcG>. 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> and the ICANN’s Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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

2 1

Financial Evaluation Criteria and Instructions
by Elisa Busetto Jan. 14, 2025

Jan. 14, 2025

Dear IRT members, We are pleased to share the proposed Financial Evaluation Criteria and Instructions: drive<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FocVcCIOrM1KgmAkVGlhVH1Bihp1c7VfNOG1aOR…>, pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Financial%20…>, docx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Financial%20…>. Best regards, Elisa

1 1

Application Queuing
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 13, 2025

Jan. 13, 2025

Dear all, Tomorrow’s IRT call will largely focus on RVCs, but I would like to kick the call off by talking about the prioritization draw. (note: the call will start at 12:30 UTC tomorrow; 30min earlier than originally scheduled; a reminder went out earlier today). Following the IRT’s discussion in December<https://community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg>, staff made enquiries and held a number of meeting and we would like to propose the implementation path outlined in December and would also like to take it to public comment. Below, I summarized the issue, the background, the proposed implementation path, and the rationale for said path. I would like to address this during tomorrow’s call and field any questions. Thank you and best wishes, Lars PS: the information below is also attached as a PDF. Application Queuing - Path Forward. Issue * How to determine the priority of applications during the next round of ICANN’s new gTLD program. In other words, how to implement recommendation 19.1 and implementation guidance 19.2 from the Final Report. Background * Consistent with Recommendation 19.1, in February 2024<https://community.icann.org/x/HoCtEQ>, ICANN org proposed to implement the prioritization draw inline with the approach that occurred in 2012, with the addition of some logistical/operational improvements. The IRT members participating in the call did not support a repeat of the prioritization draw and instead asked ICANN org to explore ways to avoid the need for a draw and to randomize the prioritization process. * In June 2024<https://community.icann.org/x/xYBAEw>, ICANN org proposed to forgo the draw and, based on SubPro Final Report implementation Guidance 19.2, use an alternative method to determine processing priority. The approach was intended to address the risks associated with the relevant anti-lottery regulations while efficiently assigning priority processing numbers consistent with the policy recommendation. * During the June meeting, IRT members participating in the call then insisted that, based on recommendation 19.1, ICANN had to repeat the draw from 2012. * In December 2024<https://community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg>, ICANN org presented a revised version of the process<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTWNUpBK_Bu_Xksd7sw6-R6MhLDKhD…> originally presented during step 2 above, which included a live draw, broadcast virtually but without a public, in person event, as was the case in 2012. See google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5Gap0fzeOTWNUpBK_Bu_Xksd7sw6-R6MhLDKhD… . * During the same December 2024 call, some IRT members then asked to change the nature of the draw, from a raffle to a randomized draw, forgoing the raffle fee, and thereby possibly avoiding any risks that the application fee could be regarded as the raffle-entry fee. IRT members also asked ICANN to obtain an opinion from the California AG on the risks of alternative ways to determine priority. Implementation Path * ICANN will implement the draw as presented to the IRT in December 2024<https://community.icann.org/x/gwEiFg>, based on recommendation 19.1. ICANN remains open to explore alternatives to the draw, as laid out in June 2024<https://community.icann.org/x/xYBAEw>, however, due to the timeline, such a decision needs to be made by the IRT no later than 8 February 2025. Rationale * The proposed approach aligns with the wording and intent of recommendation 19.1. The PDP WG discussed this issue and did not recommend any fundamental changes to the 2012 process. ICANN org has already provided an alternative prioritization method to the IRT (aligning with implementation guidance 19.2) that would not rely on a raffle/draw but that option was not acceptable to the IRT. * One of the largest cost factors of the 2012 round was risk mitigation. Therefore, ICANN has taken the approach to minimize risks that could lead to increases in costs (ultimately born by applicants) and/or may impact the program’s timeline. ICANN org believes that a conservative approach to risk when it comes to the prioritization is important so not to place the program, or ICANN more generally, at risk of running an illegal lottery, e.g.: * The application fee could be regarded as the raffle fee and thus ICANN may have to donate 90% of the application fee. * Someone might bring a claim that the prioritization draw did not comply with California Penal Code 320.5<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?section…>. * We considered the request to ask for an opinion from California’s AG. Note that the California AG is statutorily limited to offering opinions to certain public officials, and is prohibited from offering opinions to private citizens like ICANN. The California AG takes the position that, under its statutory authority to issue opinions, it “may give opinions only to these specified public officials, and not to private citizens or to public officials who are not listed in the statute.” Cal. Att’y Gen., Legal Opinions of the Attorney General – Opinion Unit, https://oag.ca.gov/opinions [oag.ca.gov]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/oag.ca.gov/opinions__;!!PtGJab4!6b3kLvKX…>; see Cal. Gov’t Code § 12519 (listing specific public officials to whom “[t]he Attorney General shall give the Attorney General’s opinion”).

2 1

Reminder: Survey: Name a "Special" Type of RVCs
by Ariel Liang Jan. 13, 2025

Jan. 13, 2025

Dear all, Hope weekend was enjoyable! This is a gentle reminder on the survey below. Kindly fill it out by EOB today, and we will review the result during tomorrow’s call. Thank you! Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 3:24 PM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Survey: Name a "Special" Type of RVCs Dear All, Many thanks to those who made it to day’s call and provided your input to the draft AGB text on RVCs. As mentioned during the meeting, I’m circulating this survey https://forms.gle/EvvgW37fK4UcKSU16, which is intended to brainstorm a proper term to call a “special” type of RVC that is being used to resolve an objection or to address GAC Advice. The survey provides additional context for this exercise, and further detail about this type of RVC is described in Section 3.2.4.1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAfLA0HW-zU3TYoHMGTR57agWJiQE…> of the AGB text. We will appreciate that you fill out this survey by EOB Monday, 13 January, so we can review the result with the IRT during next Tuesday’s meeting. Thank you for your input and help! Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 2:02 PM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Dear All, Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated after the holiday season! During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. We are circulating the draft language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAfLA0HW-zU3TYoHMGTR57agWJiQE…> to facilitate your preview. Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%2…> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>. Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week! Best Regards, Ariel

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #103 | 15 January 2025, 05:00-06:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Jan. 13, 2025

Jan. 13, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #103 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 15 January 2025 at 05:00-06:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/h6xsvy6t__;!!PtGJab4!-Z_lpgV…>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/SQCcG>. 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 #102 | 14 January 2025, 12:30-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Jan. 13, 2025

Jan. 13, 2025

PLEASE NOTE EARLIER START TO THIS MEETING – 12H30 UTC Dear All, Meeting #102 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 14 January 2025 at 12:30-14:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5n6ueu68__;!!PtGJab4!7b6BgKV…>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/QgCcG>. 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> and the ICANN’s Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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

Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
by Anne ICANN Jan. 10, 2025

Jan. 10, 2025

Hi Ariel, If the language on page 8 had been clearer to specify that an RVC can be developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that RCE would result, I would not have had to repeat this comment during the call today and you would have gotten through more of your draft text. Please try to look at all draft language again from the perspective of a new applicant who does not "know the ropes". As many commented in chat, clarity for new applicants is very important. I still say that RCE in response to a GAC Early Warning could delay other processes and in fact, an Applicant might want to delay the process to avoid additional fees so please consider that possibility. As Susan said, it may not belong in the Exceptions paragraph, but it could be covered on page 8. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If we don't say on page 8 that an applicant can develop an RVC in response > to an EArly Warning, that will not be clear to new applicants. > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > GNSO Councilor > NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 > anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:59 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Hi Anne, >> >> >> >> Happy to discuss further, but the reason that the GAC Early Warning is >> not being featured like the GAC Advice is because a proposed RVC in >> response to the GAC Early Warning is not regarded as an “exception” >> described under Section 3.2.4. It falls under the general rule as described >> under Section 3.2.3. On page 8 of the google doc, we have this sentence: >> >> >> >> *“…An RVC could also institute safeguards that may help overcome a >> third-party concern with an applied-for gTLD string or application, such as >> Objections, GAC Early Warnings or Advice, application comments, or other >> issues that might otherwise negatively impact the application’s evaluation >> process. See [Section xx - Application Change Requests] and [Section xx - >> Community Input] for further details about these topics.”* >> >> >> >> If you have further questions, happy to address during the call. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> >> *Date: *Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 1:50 PM >> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < >> nigel.hickson(a)dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Thanks Ariel. I guess what I'm getting at is that Applicant could file a >> new or amended RVC in response to an early warning. The section on page 8 >> just says it's a good idea to engage with the GAC. The section on new or >> amended RVCs in 3.4 only discusses such a process in relation to GAC >> Advice, but not in relation to Early Warning. >> >> >> >> So it does not appear that the language accurately reflects a process >> whereby an RVC is developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that was >> clearly contemplated by the Clarifying Language issued by the Council when >> it advised the Board that the intention was to provide for RVCs only as >> permitted by the ByLaws. >> >> >> >> It therefore looks as though the language re Early Warning needs to be >> amended to contemplate this fact situation. And it appears 3.4 may also >> need revision to reflect this. Others on the call may have a different >> point of view, but I think some have acknowledged that an RVC can be >> developed in response to an Early Warning. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> >> GNSO Councilor >> >> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 >> >> anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >> >> Yes, you may find the reference on pages 8 and 11 of the draft text on >> google doc. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> *From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 11:49 AM >> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < >> nigel.hickson(a)dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Thanks Ariel. Does the term, GAC Early Warning, actually appear in this >> text? Can you point me to that reference? >> >> Anne >> >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> >> GNSO Councilor >> >> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 >> >> anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the further elaboration on your thought process, Anne. >> >> >> >> Since the RVC topic will be discussed tomorrow during the IRT meeting, it >> would be great to hear other’s thoughts on this. In my mind, an RVC in >> response to a GAC Early Warning would be very similar to an RVC in response >> to an application comment, in the sense that the RVC may be proposed, as an >> Application Change Request, to address a concern raised by a third party. >> There is no other separate process being brought into the mix in those >> situations, unlike the ones relating to GAC Advice and Objection, which >> would involve the Board and the DRSP respectively. Would be helpful to >> understand what specific delay would happen in the case of GAC Early >> Warning. >> >> >> >> Thank you, and speak soon tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> *From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> >> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:16 PM >> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < >> nigel.hickson(a)dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Thanks Ariel. The reason I think that this fact situation could present >> a possible time delay is because every RVC must undergo an Evaluation. >> Thus, it strikes me that there is potential delay wherever the RVC is not >> a pre-approved "Safeguard". >> >> >> >> Whether or not to proceed in the face of an Early Warning without >> negotiating an RVC with the GAC country that issues it is of course, a >> business risk decision to be made by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it seems >> to me that proposing an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning could >> involve some delay. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> >> GNSO Councilor >> >> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 >> >> anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Thanks all for the discussion on this topic! Agree that it would be >> sensible that the applicant shouldn’t “ignore” a GAC Early Warning and >> tries to address it in order to avoid the risk of a GAC Advice. >> >> >> >> To answer Anne’s follow up question regarding whether a proposed RVC to >> address GAC Early Warning should be included in the “Exceptions” section, >> we don’t believe this would be the case. >> >> >> >> Proposed RVCs to overcome GAC Advice and Objection are “special”, because >> in those situations, a separate process is brought into the mix (e.g., >> Board consideration of the GAC Advice, Objection process), and the proposed >> RVC has the “make it or break it” effect on the application progression. >> >> >> >> In the event an RVC is proposed to address a GAC Early Warning, it >> doesn’t have the same effect. In other words, if it is rejected by ICANN, >> the application should still be able to proceed after removing the proposed >> RVC. However, the GAC may separately decide whether/how to continue >> pursuing the concerns raised (e.g., whether to issue a GAC Advice). If a >> GAC Advice says an application cannot proceed *unless* agreement is >> reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the “exception” >> situation is triggered. >> >> >> >> We attempt to cover this point in Section 3.2.3 [docs.google.com] >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHA…> >> under the “general rule”, but if the IRT agrees that we need to further >> elaborate on the GAC Early Warning situation, we will consider revising the >> text to make it clearer. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> *From: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital> >> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:44 AM >> *To: *Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)dsit.gov.uk> >> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, Anne ICANN < >> anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a precursor to GAC advice. There >> were many early warnings last time that did not result in GAC advice. That >> said taking account of an early warning and talking to the government(s) >> concerned would indeed be sensible. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> CD >> >> >> >> On 7 Jan 2025, at 09:53, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via SubPro-IRT < >> subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> OFFICIAL >> >> >> >> Ariel cc as above >> >> >> >> Good morning to you and colleagues. Thanks to Anne for initiating this >> dialogue. >> >> >> >> From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the >> main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern. You >> are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but >> an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how >> the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC >> advice. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> OFFICIAL >> >> *From:* Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Sent:* 06 January 2025 20:07 >> *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> >> *Cc:* subpro-irt(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Hello Anne, >> >> >> >> To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have >> significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a >> GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning >> (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC). >> >> >> >> For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an >> application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a >> potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The >> applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early >> Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or >> rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able >> to proceed. >> >> >> >> However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an >> application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC >> that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC >> Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a >> GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is >> further elaborated in Section 3.4 [docs.google.com] >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bWQejPrHG4Lh…> >> of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic. >> >> >> >> I hope I answered your question, Anne? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> >> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM >> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *"subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 >> PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies >> >> >> >> Thanks Ariel. A preliminary question: trying to understand the >> difference in 3.2.4 between a proposed RVC in response to GAC Advice versus >> a proposed RVC in response to GAC Early Warning? >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Anne >> >> \ >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> >> GNSO Councilor >> >> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 >> >> anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 12:02 PM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT < >> subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated >> after the holiday season! >> >> >> >> During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the >> proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration >> Policies. We are circulating the draft language [docs.google.com] >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHA…> >> to facilitate your preview. >> >> >> >> Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the >> Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document >> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%2…> >> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on >> 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki >> page here <https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week! >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Ariel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance >> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You >> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance >> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You >> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >>

3 3

SubPro IRT Meeting #118 | 27 February 2025, 19:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Jan. 10, 2025

Jan. 10, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #118 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 27 February 2025 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/2p9sv5xz>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/KwAvH>. 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> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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