- SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #126 | 1 April 2025, 19:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation March 31, 2025

March 31, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #126 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 1 April 2025 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yjdus4pz__;!!PtGJab4!9ZvsyZU…>]. Planned topics: 4. Different TLD Types The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/EQATIg>. 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

Formal Objections and Limited Appeals
by Kathy Kleiman March 30, 2025

March 30, 2025

Hi Lars, You asked me to explain in more detail the reason that the Appeal of Formal Objection needs a Quick Look (as we have created for the underlying Objection itself). It’s a fair question and calls up recommendations of the SubPro and the goal that the Appeals be the truly limited mechanism that the SubPro hoped to create. _From the SubPro Final Report:_ “Implementation Guidance 32.7: All challenges and appeals except for the conflict of interest appeals should be reviewed under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard. Conflict of interest should be reviewed under a ‘de novo’ standard.” *“Recommendation 32.10:* *The limited challenge/appeal process must be designed in a manner that does not cause excessive, unnecessary costs or delays… “ * “Implementation Guidance 32.12:The limited challenge/appeal mechanism should include a ‘quick look’ step at the beginning of the process to identify and eliminate frivolous challenges/appeals.” *Rationale for Recommendation 32.10 and Implementation Guidance 21.11-32.13: “… Specifically, a ‘quick look’ mechanism is proposed to avoid unnecessary costs and delays associated with frivolous challenges/appeals.”* _How do we prevent abuse of the Objection process (the underlying proceeding)?_ While we are still working out the final details, the IRT has done a good job of preventing misuse of the initial Objection filing by created a “Quick Look” mechanism. According to our IRT docs: /“The “quick look mechanism” is designed to identify and eliminate objections that are manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object in the following cases:/ /● The objection is not filed on one of the accepted objection grounds; and/or/ /● The party filing the objection does not have standing; and/or/ /● Insufficient or no evidence is provided to support the objection; and/or/ /● The objection is far-fetched, clearly invented, manifestly contrary to common sense, or so ambiguous that it is objectively impossible for the DRSP to make sense of it; and/or/ /● The objection spreads, incites, promotes, or justifies hatred based on intolerance towards a certain group; and/or/ /● Other facts that may clearly show that the objection is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse to the right to object.” Proposed AGB Language_Quick Look Mechanism_v02_2024-02-29, among other materials./ /Further, the IRT found: “An objection may be considered manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse to the right to object in the following cases:/ /● Multiple objections on the same ground are filed by the same or related parties against the same applicant in a manner that constitutes harassment of the applicant…”/ *Thus, the IRT created the Quick Look procedure:*//*“The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly ill-founded and/or anabuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination, rendered in accordance with [Article x] of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.” * *_Similarly for the Appeals Process, a Quick Look at each Appeal will prevent abuse of the Limited Appeals proceeding_* Like the Objections process itself, the Appeals of a Formal Objection cannot be filed by anyone or for any reason. It is not a filing by right, but by reason. Just as with the Objections process, the Quick Look for the Limited Appeals process will ensure the rapid dismissal of an appeal that is manifestly ill-founded and/or an abuse of the right to appeal. You asked what might be rejected on a Quick Look of an Appeals filing, and such filings would include: - A conflict of interest by the original Objection Panelist alleged, but filled with inaccurate allegations of where the Panelist works or worked – thus the challenge is made with data that is incorrect or obsolete. - The Appellant challenges part of the underlying Objection, but with evidence and arguments that do not come close meeting the very high “clearly erroneous” standard required for an Appeal. - The Party filing the appeal was not a party to the underlying proceeding. - The Appellant appeals each and every Objection it lost because it does not like the Objection process or does not like to lose. This would be an abuse of process. - The Appeal is filed for frivolous reasons hoping the party that won the Objection (such as a Community or Trademark Owner) will not have the money to continue to the Appeal. A Quick Look is /even more important for a Limited Appeals process than the underlying Objection/ because we set such a *high standard for the Appeals and made it limited. The best way to ensure the Appeal is efficient, not frivolous, not created for delay, and not intended to harass one or more parties filing the Objections is to provide a good, legitimate and fair Quick Look. * /Thus, a good Quick Look for the Limited Appeals could identify and eliminate Appeals that are manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to appeal, drawing on the other Quick Look, would include: / /● The Appeal was not filed on one of the accepted objection grounds; and/or/ /● Filed by a group or organization not a party to the initial Objection, and/or/ /● Insufficient or no evidence is provided to support the Appeal; and/or/ /● the Appeal is far-fetched, clearly invented, manifestly contrary to common sense, or so ambiguous that it is objectively impossible for the DRSP to make sense of it; and/or/ /● The Appeal spreads, incites, promotes, or justifies hatred based on intolerance towards a certain group; and/or/ /● The Appeal includes facts that clearly show that it is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse to the right to appeal.” And/or / /● The Appeal constitutes harassment of the other parties or the process itself./ *As the DRSP will know how to do this for the initial Objection, they will be capable of and do a good job with review of the Quick Look for these Limited Appeals to prevent frivolous filings and ensure the Limited Appeals process is respected and not abuse. * Best regards, Kathy

1 0

Updated AGB Section on Topic 4: TLD Types
by Jared Erwin March 28, 2025

March 28, 2025

Dear IRT Members, Ahead of our call on Tuesday, 1 April 2025, I’m sharing here the updated draft of the AGB Section on TLD Types: * PDF<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+W…> * Clean Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Kpd0F9gZL3r6r1OKUvr01MFdJo-Utb42TO2z_9… * Redline Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ztFoj8pzRmggF4P6Gtexoev57fiS8CdapEmo1DM… Note that we received some questions regarding Brands vs. Exclusive Use and I believe this version clarifies this. We can discuss further on Tuesday. Please make any comments on the redline version. Thank you and speak to you all next week, 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>

1 0

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #125 | 27 March 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation March 27, 2025

March 27, 2025

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #125 of the SubPro IRT held on Thursday, 27 March 2025 are published on the meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/CgATIg>. 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 | SubPro IRT Meeting #125 | 27 March 2025, 12:00-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation March 27, 2025

March 27, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS, AND WILL START AN HOUR EARLIER AT 12:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #125 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 27 March 2025 at 12:00-14:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/22zfp8de__;!!PtGJab4!5IeuZZ7…>]. Planned topics: 18. Terms & Conditions; Legal Compliance; Privacy Policy The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CgATIg>. 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

Request for AGB related sessions at ICANN83
by Elisa Busetto March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Dear IRT members, We are reaching out about our planned ‘AGB roadshow’ before and during ICANN83. As you know, we are working towards launching the Public Comment on the whole draft Applicant Guidebook on 30 May at the latest for a period of 50 days. In the run up to the Prague meeting, the New gTLD Program team will hold a prep week session on the status of the Program. The team also plans to provide a stand-alone webinar on key sections of the Applicant Guidebook, once it is out for Public Comment. We will have a number of SMEs on the ground in Prague and plan to hold at least one IRT session on the AGB, likely with a similar content as we will provide during the aforementioned webinar, and one session that provides an update from the Outreach, Engagement, and Communications team. We would also like to offer to present on specific topics to your respective community groups. E.g., this could be in the form of providing details on specific topics or just sitting in on your discussions and providing clarification or background information, e.g. in case your community group holds a working session on the Public Comment. We kindly ask that you confer with your community groups if you’d like someone from our team to attend any of your meetings during ICANN83 and if so let us know, off-list, by 30 April 2025. If you have any questions, please reach out at any time. Thank you! Best, Elisa P.S.: We will send a similar message to the SO/AC leaders and include a short note in an upcoming Community Digest<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/qAL2Bg>, too.

7 7

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #125 | 27 March 2025, 12:00-14:00 UTC
by Renate De Wulf March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS, AND WILL START AN HOUR EARLIER AT 12:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #125 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 27 March 2025 at 12:00-14:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/22zfp8de__;!!PtGJab4!5IeuZZ7…>]. Planned topics: 18. Terms & Conditions; Legal Compliance; Privacy Policy The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CgATIg>. 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

Treatment of Reserved Names under Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations
by Justine Chew March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Dear Lars, Elise, Michael and Sarmad, At the SubPro IRT Meeting #121 <https://community.icann.org/x/NYDKGQ> during ICANN82, I had requested for the opportunity to review the part of the discussion where a change was proposed in respect of Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations. Specifically, in Section 1.2 Scope of String Similarity Evaluation on page 3 of *Proposed AGB Language_String Similarity Evaluation_v06_2025-03-06.pdf *(linked on the SubPro IRT Meeting #121 <https://community.icann.org/x/NYDKGQ> wiki page) it was proposed that the reference to "Reserved Names" be changed to "Blocked Names". While I acknowledge that a change is warranted given ICANN org's effort to now re-classify (a) what was known as Reserved Names (in the 2012 AGB) to Blocked Names (in the NR AGB) and (b) what was known as "Strings Ineligible for Delegation (in the 2012 AGB) to Reserved Names (in the NR AGB), I would like to pose a few questions for resolution with the following context. *Context* 1. As detailed in the Phase 1 Final Report on the Internationalized Domain Names Expedited Policy Development Process <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-…> which was put out for public comment by the Board <https://www.icann.org/ru/public-comment/proceeding/phase-1-final-report-of-…>, the EPDP working group did consider the treatment for (the 2012) Reserved Names separately to Strings Ineligible for Delegation, which resulted in Final Recommendations 3.18, 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 at page 51. For present purposes, I would like to draw specific attention to: *"Final Recommendation 3.20: The list of Strings Ineligible for Delegation must not be expanded to include variant labels."*; and *"Final Recommendation 3.21: Only the protected organizations on the list of Strings Ineligible for Delegation are allowed to apply for the allocatable variant label(s) of their protected string(s) at the top-level. Consistent with Final Recommendation 3.1, an application for an allocatable variant label of a protected string cannot precede an application for the protected string, which serves as the primary label for generating the variant label." * And as a reminder, going forward, "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" are known as "Reserved Names". 2. In Section 2.1.8 Reserved Name Identification on page 6 of Applicant Journey (related to Topic 5: Application Submission Limits and Topic 16: Application Submission Period) <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/applicant-journey-rel…> currently out for public comment through the Fourth Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round AGB <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/fourth-proceeding-for-pr…>, there is mention of treatment of Reserved Names. For convenience, I replicate the section below and highlighted in blue the portion of interest. *"2.1.8 Reserved Name IdentificationCertain strings, known as “Reserved Names”, are available as gTLD strings at the top level only through a validation process. These names are designated for specific entities, which are the only ones eligible to apply for them. ICANN org maintains a list of Reserved Names, compiled from various sources, and requires relevant entities to provide appropriate documentation, as outlined in the [Blocked and Reserved Names] section. During application drafting, the system will automatically verify whether the selected string and allocatable variants (where applicable) are a Reserved Name. If there is a positive match, the applicant will be requested to upload supporting documentation proving they are the entity for which the name is reserved, as described in [Reserved Name Identification]." * This seems to suggests that each applied-for string and its allocatable variants has to be compared with the list of Reserved Names and exact matches would not be allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate it is the entity for which the name is reserved. And we know that the list of Reserved Names are established separately through an examination of treaties and statutes across multiple jurisdictions. *Questions* Q1. Coming back to Section 1.2 Scope of String Similarity Evaluation on page 3 of *Proposed AGB Language_String Similarity Evaluation_v06_2025-03-06.pdf*, in apart from changing "Reserved Names" to "Blocked Names", should we not also make mention of the treatment of Reserved Names? If not, why? Q2. If we don't make mention per Q1, is section 2.1.8 of the Application Journey chapter then sufficiently clear to reconcile the treatment of Blocked Names versus the treatment of Reserved Names as presented in the Application Journey Chapter and in the chapter on String Similarity Evaluation? I suspect not. Q3. Could ICANN org propose a way to rectify any shortcomings I have attempted to highlight here, within the 2 chapters of String Similarity Evaluations and Applicant Journey, and elsewhere in the NR AGB as needed? Thank you, Justine

2 2

Re: RSP Selection
by Pruis, Elaine March 25, 2025

March 25, 2025

HI Lars, Thanks for the explanation, but I’m afraid that just won’t do. If the RSP evaluation window is to shut down on the last day that an application can be submitted, ICANN is unnaturally closing off the ability for new competitors to enter the RSP space/industry. I hope you all can find another way to provide certainty that ICANN have applied the same evaluation criteria to all RSP applicants. Elaine From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 3:49 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] RSP Selection 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, Following today’s (12 Feb 13 UTC) discussion, please, find attached the redline language and the clean language for RSP selection. In addition, there was a question from Elaine about the opening and closing of the RSP application window. Here is our explanation: ICANN org has developed internal evaluation guides for performing the RSP evaluation based on the criteria in the RSP handbook. The evaluation works by having a person with multiple years of industry experience doing the evaluation and another with similar skills doing quality assurance. Once all the evaluations are performed, the team will have multiple alignment sessions to confirm that the same criteria have been applied uniformly. This process provides certainty that we have applied the same evaluation criteria. If we don't close the application window, it's not possible to follow this process, as new entities could be joining at any time. Once the pre-evaluation period ends, we will publish the list of evaluated RSPs for the first time to provide the gTLD applicants an opportunity to start establishing business relationships with the RSPs. The RSP program was developed specifically for the NxR. Therefore, the second application window closes simultaneously with the gTLD application window. I hope this information is helpful. Please note, the clean document will post for public comment on Friday with the remainder of the materials. Best. Lars Redline: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13PCoLz3vBNB5dmuiACoIF6dI5Q9SMune-Ij5qIG… Clean: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RHHRPGMs0XRStOpnoOgY_4PL_gn8MncSAXLRC3C… PDF attached

2 2

LONGER CALL | SubPro IRT Meeting #125 | 27 March 2025, 12:00-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation March 24, 2025

March 24, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS, AND WILL START AN HOUR EARLIER AT 12:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #125 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 27 March 2025 at 12:00-14:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/22zfp8de>]. Planned topics: 18. Terms & Conditions; Legal Compliance; Privacy Policy The final agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CgATIg>. 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