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

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #113a | 12 February 2025, 13:00-15:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL WILL NOW TAKE PLACE AT 13:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #113a of the SubPro IRT will be held on 12 February 2025 at 13:00-15:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/4kt63ukh>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/DoBnHg>. 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

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #113 | 11 February 2025, 13:00-15:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS Dear All, Meeting #113 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 11 February 2025 at 13:00-15:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/3tvu32ax>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CAAvH>. 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

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #113 | 11 February 2025, 13:00-15:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY AN HOUR, FROM 13:00 TO 15:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #113 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 11 February 2025 at 13:00-15:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/3tvu32ax>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CAAvH>. 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

2 1

Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications
by Pruis, Elaine Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Thanks for the insight Lars, I hope we will have time to discuss in Seattle as I think this topic impacts a broad swath of the community and bringing these types scenarios to light may help set proper expectations for what CPE could look like. Elaine From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 12:34 AM To: Elaine Pruis <epruis(a)verisign.com>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications 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. Thank you, Elaine, for your thoughtful contribution. For context, here is the existing definition, per Based RA (p. 102): “A string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations, or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations, or things from those of others.” I think you make a valid point, but I am not sure that, under the current set of policy recommendations and implementation guidance, anything could be done to prevent the Coin klan from scoring highly in your described scenario. Determining the ‘right/best/most deserving’ community for a particular gTLD string will always remain somewhat subjective. Some may believe that the Coin klan constitutes a community and see no issue with your example. Others may argue that all those who use coins—real or virtual—are the true coin community and that the coin family should not be able to obtain the TLD via CPE. Alternatively, as you suggest, some may feel the term is ‘too generic’ and should not even be permitted as a community TLD. This reflects the broader challenge we have encountered when considering CPE: everyone knows what kind of community in their view should pass CPE. Because this knowledge is inherently subjective, we have so far struggled to establish objective criteria to determine which community applicant deserves a generic string over all other applicants. Perhaps we can dedicate some time to this topic during one of the Seattle IRT sessions and explore the issue further. Such a discussion may also help inform public comment input, which will be due about a month after ICANN83. Thank you, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue. Very best, Lars From: "Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday, 7 February 2025 at 23:51 To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications Hello IRT, I had hoped to discuss this on a call, but have been asked to share to the list for discussion. Please read and provide feedback as CPE is about to go to public comment. There is a scenario where Community Priority could be gained by a very small group for a super generic string, which I don’t think aligns with the intention of providing this great advantage of avoiding ICANN auction via designation as a community. For ease of reference, here is the overall scoring section: 1.6.1 Criterion 1: Community Establishment This criterion relates to the community as explicitly identified according to statements in the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core questions in evaluating the application against this criterion: Organization (2 points): Is the applicant the organizing body for the community? If not, is the applicant able to demonstrate that the community is organized, with an organizing body(ies) relevant to the community or to each member category of the community? Engagement (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate that there is active engagement with community members? Awareness (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate awareness among and between community members of the identified community? Longevity (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate the longevity of the community's pursuits, showing that they are enduring and sustainable rather than temporary? Here is the scenario. The application is for .coin, and the applicant represents a multigenerational family with the surname “Coin” . The applicant Mr. Coin Sr. has created an LLC and that LLC “Coin TLD” is the organizing body for the community “as defined by the applicant” (“My family, the Coin Klan is a community” says Mr. Coin). Mr. Coin Sr. can claim the family including Ms. Coin, Mr. Coin Jr. and Sister Coin have appointed him and the LLC as the organizing body for their Coin community. They are actively engaged with each other, even on a daily basis (“Dad can I have a ride to the movies?” says Sister Coin. They then spend lots of time in the car interacting. They text each other every day). Clearly the entire family is fully aware of their community and know they are part of the Coin Klan. The Coin community was established generations ago and since Mr. Coin Jr. has two kids and is expecting a baby soon, they can demonstrate longevity, sustainability, and prove they are not merely a temporary Klan. The opportunity for the Coin Klan to win .coin over any other applicant is real, but the delegation of a super generic string to a community such as The Coin Klan over any other applicant seems counter to the spirit of the recommendation. Can we add some language that prevents this sort of opportunism? Should there be extra scrutiny or higher points required when a super generic string is in play? Elaine From: Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 8:31 AM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications 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 IRT Members, I’m sending here the updated draft AGB language for Topic 34: Community Applications (Community Priority Evaluation). Link to Google Doc Link to Clean PDF Link to Redline PDF This version includes the following changes/updates: Responses to IRT comments and updates based on comments, where applicable Quite a few editorial edits Clarification in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 regarding requirements for community applicants as it relates to community information and Community Registration Policies Several clarifications to the guidelines for each of the criteria, including on the required supporting documentation Clarification on the community endorsement scoring as to how an applicant would achieve points As noted previously, ICANN recommends that we push forward with Public Comment and that ICANN continue to review the CPE language once comments on the topic have been received. We would kindly request any further on anything the IRT believes does not meet the intent of a recommendation to be provided to us as soon as possible but no later than 13 February 2025. Thank you! Best, Michael

2 1

Fourth public comment - Next Steps
by Lars Hoffmann Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Dear members of the IRT, As we are approaching the fourth public comment period, and with a lot of calls scheduled, we looked at a way to reduce call times but ensure you have the option to raise any flags regarding proposed AGB text not aligning with the wording or intent of the SubPro recommendations. Therefore, we would like to share draft AGB text on the following topics with you, asking that you review these by Monday 10 Feb 2025, please. We note that all these issues have been discussed with the IRT already on a number of occasions. The ask is to flag issues that do not align with the wording or intent of the recommendations. The topic this applies for are: 1. Community Priority Evaluation (Jared will send an updated draft and some more context by Tuesday, 4 Feb COB (PST). 2. RVCs/PICs 3. Contention resolution including the following: * Brand string change (we updated previous feedback on the type of documents brands need to submit) * Auctions between geo names * Exception: No private resolution (this was NOT shared with the IRT yet and I will walk the IRT through this subsection during Wednesday’s call (05:00 UTC), see also below) 4. Material Impact re: Predictability framework 5. Terms and Conditions (note: I will provide feedback on initial reactions during Tuesday’s or Wednesday’s IRT call, subject to time permitting) I will send links to these topics out in separate emails, so that any on-list discussion on these topics is contained to one and the same email thread. The remaining topics, all of which will be discussed during upcoming calls, are as follows: 1. Application questions (scheduled IRT date: 12 Feb) (we will share the document this week) 2. Updates to Application Change Requests (6 Feb) 3. Applicant Journey (6 Feb) 4. Fees, including conditional evaluation and refund (4 Feb) 5. No private resolution (5 Feb) (document shared 3 Feb) 6. RSP selection (11 Feb) 7. Spec 9 criteria (11 Feb) (we will share the document this week) 8. Spec 13 criteria (11 Feb) (we will share the document this week) Please let me know if you have any questions. Very best. Lars

2 2

Apologies
by Pruis, Elaine Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

I will be in flight during at least the first hour of meeting #113 on Tuesday. Hope to join after I land. Elaine Pruis Naming Senior Director +1 (571) 299-9387

1 0

ASP Evaluator Announcement
by Kristy Buckley Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Greetings IRT members, In case you haven't seen it yet, ICANN recently announced its vendor selection for the Applicant Support Program's Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP): https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-announces-the-support-… We're excited for this major milestone in the program and we look forward to seeing ASP applicants proceeding through the full evaluation with this vendor on board. Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team Kristy J. Buckley, Ph.D. (she/her) Outreach & Digital Inclusion Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement Internet Corporation for Assignment Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org/

1 0

Re: Proposed AGB Language for RSP Selection, Spec 13, and Spec 9
by Jared Erwin Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Dear IRT Members, To Lars’s email below, I’m sending here three documents for your review, which are also on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents> (under Topic 27): * Brand TLD Eligibility Evaluation (Spec 13) * Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15mCJSqDRrVDGCaCoaGRqNBttud0fK_ICCYglKiy…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Brand%20TLD%…> * Code of Conduct Exemption Evaluation (Spec 9) * Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxH1M3YNcJpxTdy1KQLUb6XrdR1gkkEgZtTx5C…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Code%20of%20…> * Registry Service Provider Selection * Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13PCoLz3vBNB5dmuiACoIF6dI5Q9SMune-Ij5qIG…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents?preview=/3154…> These will be discussed on the IRT call on 11 February 2025 at 13:00-15:00 UTC. Thank you, 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> From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 08:37 To: Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Next Steps + Language on Fees and Application Questions Dear IRT members, Key points: 1. New Draft AGB language on fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1icxkmmXmbT-x…> that includes updates based on feedback received to-date (see more details below) 2. New Draft language for Application Questions [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1icxkmmXmbT-x…> 3. Email from Michael [lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-i…> with updated draft language on CPE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1QLlUr21xxaZL…> sent today 4. 2 IRT calls next week covering: Tuesday<https://community.icann.org/x/CAAvH>: fees, RA; Wednesday<https://community.icann.org/x/DoBnHg>: Application questions, Spec 9 and Spec 13 evaluation, and RSP selection. 5. Public comment to open on 14 February for all remaining topics – with a reminder that we will review all topics again and everything will go out for comment again at the end of May. All the points: I wanted to thank you for all the hours you spent on calls, and helped to improve the AGB language that we shared with you – thank you!! We shared a lot of documents this week (and some more coming on Monday next week), and so I wanted to end the week like I started, with an overview email, please, bear with me. 1. We have currently 2 IRT sessions planned next week (Tuesday and Wednesday); a third is on the calendars (Thursday) but we will use that only if we need to circle back to anything before the public comment. Topics for these sessions are indicated below, and the wiki page has been updated accordingly: https://community.icann.org/x/rAM5Dg a. On Tuesday<https://community.icann.org/x/CAAvH>, we will focus on Fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…> and the RA. You can now review the draft AGB language on fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…>, which includes updates based on the feedback we have received to-date, including an additional refund window, refund options for strings that are determined to be of high risk of collision, and refunds in case of material changes to the AGB. Draft AGB Language: Application Fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…> b. On Wednesday<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=510099470>, we will focus on three new documents: Application Questions [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1icxkmmXmbT-x…>, RSP Selection, Spec 9 and Spec 13 evaluations. The application questions you can review as of now, the remaining three (much shorter) documents we will share Monday morning (Pacific time). Please note: for these topics we are just looking for a common-sense review. They do not pertain to particular recommendations but are an important part of the AGB and the application process. We will address any immediate concerns and review these again in more detail after the public comment period. 2. On Monday morning (PST) 10 February, we will close* the following documents for comments in the run-up to the public comment, meaning we will address input off-list as best as we cann and then revisit these in the context of public comments received in April/early May: a. Material Impact for Predictability [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1jbuangX5oMbG…> b. Application Change Request [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1xn8_wTInFG3n…> c. CPE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1QLlUr21xxaZL…> (Michael just shared an email [lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-i…> and updated language taking into account recent IRT input) d. RVCs/PICs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1H3IH5OZpV9q2…> e. Terms and Conditions [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1SX83JLEMJwG7…> f. Contention Resolution, including “no private resolution” [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1WVOyH5lFZvpp…> g. Applicant Journey [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1jbuangX5oMbG…> (we will share an updated document reflecting changes from yesterday’s discussion<https://community.icann.org/x/AQAvH> on Monday 10 Feb) *Any comments received, we will address in the document, either by amending the text or providing a rationale why, for now, we will not make any changes. The document will then be cleaned up and prepared for public comment. We will revisit all items that are not closed out together with any public comments received in April/early May. 3. We are working on an update to the Draft AGB text on Name Collision – we expect to share that with the group on Tuesday 11 Feb. We recognize that not all concerns that were raised will be fully addressed in the document – still, I have asked the team to put the document out for public comment on Friday, so that we can gather more input and also start working on incorporating some of the feedback that we have heard from the IRT already while the document is out for comment. I appreciate that this is not idea, but I think we will make it work and of course this will be part of the May public comment, too. 4. If need be, we can have another IRT call on Thursday 13 February (in case not everything can be resolved on list or any of the topics discussed Monday and Tuesday require additional time). However, our goal remains to publish the fourth public comment on Friday 14 February. Therefore, the Thursday call is strictly optional as making significant changes to documents this late will impact the timeline. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. And, again, thank you so much for all your hard work and flexibility that you have shown to help us get all of this across the public comment line. Very best. Lars

1 0

Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Next Steps + Language on Fees and Application Questions
by Lars Hoffmann Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Thank you, Martin, for the clarification. After the IRT’s feedback on the unhelpfulness of t-shirt sizing the conditional evaluation fees during the call and on the list, Marika had indicated in her email to you on Wednesday<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-irt@icann.org/thread/35WWIUX…>, that we will take out these figures, which were based on our 2012 experiences. It seems more productive to continue discussing the conditional fees when we have some concrete offers from vendors on what the likely pass-through costs will be, by which time we should also have a more detailed understanding of the staff resources that may need to be involved in the admiration side of these evaluations. Best wishes. Lars From: Martin Sutton <martin(a)tldz.com> Date: Saturday, 8 February 2025 at 08:23 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Next Steps + Language on Fees and Application Questions Hi Lars, I think Ruben’s may be referring to the additional fees on page 3, where these items remain blank. Regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder E: Martin(a)tldz.com T: +44 7774 556680 TLDz.com [Image removed by sender. image001.png] On 8 Feb 2025, at 07:12, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Rubens, Thank you for kindly reaching out. When I checked the Google Doc just now, I could see the fee language. I also saw another external IRT member in the document. Version history seems to suggest the document had been available and not modified since before I sent the email yesterday. So perhaps the issue is at your end. In any case, attached is a PDF version that hopefully works. Kind regards. Lars From: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> Date: Friday, 7 February 2025 at 20:48 To: Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Next Steps + Language on Fees and Application Questions 1. On Tuesday<https://community.icann.org/x/CAAvH>, we will focus on Fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…> and the RA. You can now review the draft AGB language on fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…>, which includes updates based on the feedback we have received to-date, including an additional refund window, refund options for strings that are determined to be of high risk of collision, and refunds in case of material changes to the AGB. Draft AGB Language: Application Fees [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1StflMJFVTXvg…> It would be nice to have the actual fees before the session. For now they are blank. Rubens <EXT_Application Fees.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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.

6 8

Re: Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications
by Pruis, Elaine Feb. 8, 2025

Feb. 8, 2025

Hello IRT, I had hoped to discuss this on a call, but have been asked to share to the list for discussion. Please read and provide feedback as CPE is about to go to public comment. There is a scenario where Community Priority could be gained by a very small group for a super generic string, which I don’t think aligns with the intention of providing this great advantage of avoiding ICANN auction via designation as a community. For ease of reference, here is the overall scoring section: 1.6.1 Criterion 1: Community Establishment This criterion relates to the community as explicitly identified according to statements in the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core questions in evaluating the application against this criterion: Organization (2 points): Is the applicant the organizing body for the community? If not, is the applicant able to demonstrate that the community is organized, with an organizing body(ies) relevant to the community or to each member category of the community? Engagement (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate that there is active engagement with community members? Awareness (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate awareness among and between community members of the identified community? Longevity (1 point): Is the applicant able to demonstrate the longevity of the community's pursuits, showing that they are enduring and sustainable rather than temporary? Here is the scenario. The application is for .coin, and the applicant represents a multigenerational family with the surname “Coin” . The applicant Mr. Coin Sr. has created an LLC and that LLC “Coin TLD” is the organizing body for the community “as defined by the applicant” (“My family, the Coin Klan is a community” says Mr. Coin). Mr. Coin Sr. can claim the family including Ms. Coin, Mr. Coin Jr. and Sister Coin have appointed him and the LLC as the organizing body for their Coin community. They are actively engaged with each other, even on a daily basis (“Dad can I have a ride to the movies?” says Sister Coin. They then spend lots of time in the car interacting. They text each other every day). Clearly the entire family is fully aware of their community and know they are part of the Coin Klan. The Coin community was established generations ago and since Mr. Coin Jr. has two kids and is expecting a baby soon, they can demonstrate longevity, sustainability, and prove they are not merely a temporary Klan. The opportunity for the Coin Klan to win .coin over any other applicant is real, but the delegation of a super generic string to a community such as The Coin Klan over any other applicant seems counter to the spirit of the recommendation. Can we add some language that prevents this sort of opportunism? Should there be extra scrutiny or higher points required when a super generic string is in play? Elaine From: Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 8:31 AM To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Updated Draft AGB Section for Topic 34: Community Applications 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 IRT Members, I’m sending here the updated draft AGB language for Topic 34: Community Applications (Community Priority Evaluation). Link to Google Doc Link to Clean PDF Link to Redline PDF This version includes the following changes/updates: Responses to IRT comments and updates based on comments, where applicable Quite a few editorial edits Clarification in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 regarding requirements for community applicants as it relates to community information and Community Registration Policies Several clarifications to the guidelines for each of the criteria, including on the required supporting documentation Clarification on the community endorsement scoring as to how an applicant would achieve points As noted previously, ICANN recommends that we push forward with Public Comment and that ICANN continue to review the CPE language once comments on the topic have been received. We would kindly request any further on anything the IRT believes does not meet the intent of a recommendation to be provided to us as soon as possible but no later than 13 February 2025. Thank you! Best, Michael

2 1