- SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

Updated language: Application Change Requests
by Elisa Busetto April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear IRT members, As discussed during meeting #128<https://community.icann.org/x/AgAaIg>, we have made updates to the Application Change Requests language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2IZmqDsfZv8ra6RaFGCZjLNwVnH1_LQcanXssO…> based on the public comments received. We consider the language as ready for the final public comment in May. Best regards, Elisa

1 0

SubPro IRT Meeting #129 | 10 April 2025, 12:00-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #129 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 10 April 2025 at 12:00-14:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5e84n2m2__;!!PtGJab4!5WFJ8Nk…>]. Planned topics: 20. Application Change Requests; Applicant Journey; Spec 13; Spec 9 The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CQAaIg>. 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

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #128 | 8 April 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #128 of the SubPro IRT held on Tuesday, 8 April 2025 are published on the meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/AgAaIg>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate

1 0

REMINDER | LONGER CALL | SubPro IRT Meeting #128 | 8 April 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC
by Renate De Wulf April 8, 2025

April 8, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 2 HOURS, and will start at 18:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #128 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 8 April 2025 at 18:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/mvbvbkvx__;!!PtGJab4!-PnFX73…>]. The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/AgAaIg>. 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

Agenda for Meeting #128 on 8 April
by Elisa Busetto April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

Hello IRT, We have made changes to the agenda for meeting #128, scheduled for 8 April, after reviewing the public comments received – please see here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/DRawBg>. Please also note that we will not be discussing the Base RA tomorrow but during meeting #130<https://community.icann.org/x/EAAaIg>. Best, Elisa

1 0

Apologies for Call
by Jeff Neuman April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

All, Sending apologies for the call later. I have a conflicting obligation. That said, I put comments into the TLD Type document, mostly on the unexpected added fees for Brands and Communities. These make no sense to me at all. 1. Brands - We are saying they have to pay for an evaluation to see if they are eligible to get a .brand. And then it says they have to pay for a Spec. 9 Code of Conduct Exemption as well....even though the Code of Conduct exemption is embedded in Spec 13 (Section 3). Thus, if they qualify to be a brand TLD, then there is No Need for a separate evaluation OR a separate fee? Sure, if they fail eligibility, then you can ask the applicant if it wants the Spec 9 evaluation and then it pays for that. But if it passes eligibility, then no fee and no separate code of conduct evaluation. 2. Communities - Wow, we are really hitting them hard. Not only are they going have to pay for the CPE, which can be a good chunk of change, but then we are also going to charge them for the privilege of putting their policies into Spec 12. Right now, a provision was added that states that after a Community passes CPE, it needs to pay a Registry Commitment Evaluation fee so that ICANN can figure out what can go into Spec 12. --

9 14

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #128 | 8 April 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC
by Renate De Wulf April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 2 HOURS and will start at 18:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #128 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 8 April 2025 at 18:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/mvbvbkvx__;!!PtGJab4!-PnFX73…>]. The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/AgAaIg>. 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

References
by Kathy Kleiman April 4, 2025

April 4, 2025

Hi Lars, /Could you kindly point me to the original IRT discussions on Objection Appeals and the group's review of Working Group recommendations? /Based on comments on the call today, it is important to review these earlier discussions. Best and tx, Kathy

2 2

String Confusion Edge Case (Continuing Discussion from Call)
by Jeff Neuman April 4, 2025

April 4, 2025

All, Just to further explain my point from the call just now: In the situation where there is a string confusion objection against multiple strings, yes the easiest rules to implement would be that if one of the applicants does not pay the fees for the objection on time, would be that the non-paying applicant does not proceed no matter the outcome. *However, it is not necessarily the right outcome.* I can’t remember how much string confusion objections cost, but the fee was somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars….not to mention the money you spend on legal counsel. Also keep in mind that “Loser Pays.” *Here is my scenario*: Objector A files a string confusion against applicants 1 and 2 believing that their applications should be in the same contention set as Objector A. Applicant wants to fight the objection and is willing to pay anything it takes to win. Applicant 2 believes, however, that the Objection has merit and does not mind the ultimate result that it ends up in adding Objector A to the contention set. It also has no interest in spending ten of thousands of dollars to fight a case it knows it is likely to lose (thereby losing all of the money they put into it since it is loser pays). . The “easiest solution” above would mean that Applicant 2 knowing it is likely to lose must still pay the money simply because Applicant 1 wants to fight. Yes, one could argue that Applicant 2 *could* benefit from Applicant 1’s fight (if in the off chance that it wins); But it is not fair to force Applicant 2 to pay for a fight simply because Applicant 1 does not want to concede. Solution: Add an option for Applicant 2 to plead “No Contest”. This means they would have to actually respond with that declaration, but they would not have to pay for Applicant 1s fight. By pleading no contest, it will put Applicant 1 on notice that it will be paying all the associated fees for the dispute resolution and it will be dragging along Applicant 2 if it wins. If Applicant 1 still wants to fight, so be it. If they no longer want to fight because Applicant 2 is not joining the fight, then Applicant 1 can change to plead “No contest” as well. This would result in a default and all of the applications will be in the same contention set. Most of the fees paid by the Objector will be refunded because the Panel was never technically constituted (Except for the quick look). Is my solution a little more complicated…perhaps…but I believe it is a better outcome than forcing Applicant 2 to pay to defend itself in a case it believes it will likely lose.

3 2

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #127 | 3 April 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #127 of the SubPro IRT held on Thursday, 3 April 2025 are published on the meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/AQAVIg>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate

1 0