Dear IRT members, We would like to inform you that the topic of today’s meeting will be Role of Application Comment and not the RZ-LGR module as initially communicated. We will go through the updated AGB language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybAJswI6oHwKZtAR1Qq6t1mKmIcZrwdF-fCmQVEr...> as well as the set of questions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2quqw1ibPAzUZ3JgkXmryMeEGFODY9JywWNh0oS...> for commenters. The documents are also published on the meeting page<https://community.icann.org/x/XpOZDg>. Best regards, Elisa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 12:55 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 28: Application Comment Dear IRT members, Due to unforeseen circumstances, we will not be able to discuss Topic 28 (Application Comment) today. We will provide a new date for this topic as soon as practical. Still, following the discussions held during Meeting #16<https://community.icann.org/x/SJOZDg>, we updated the proposed AGB language for Topic 28 and you can find that here for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybAJswI6oHwKZtAR1Qq6t1mKmIcZrwdF-fCmQVEr... In addition, please find below our comments to some of the points/questions raised during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/SJOZDg>: 1. “In order to submit a comment, commenters will [...] be asked to indicate [...] whether they have a relationship with any of the applicants or applications.” a. We have come up with a set of questions for your input, based on Implementation Guidance 28.5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2quqw1ibPAzUZ3JgkXmryMeEGFODY9JywWNh0oS... b. We do not believe that we need to add any language to the AGB. It should be noted that if a commenter has any kind of relationship with an applicant or application, they will still be able to submit their comment and have it considered by evaluators. It will be up to the evaluators to assess whether that relationship plays a role or not. 1. “Community Action Forum” being confusingly similar with “Approval Action Community Forum”. a. We came up with a potential new name - “Action Community Tool” (ACT). We think this would also better clarify that we are referring to the specific tool and not the period/process. Feedback and ideas are welcome! 1. How to ensure that the community is informed about the opening of the CAP? a. The community will be informed about the opening of the CAP well in advance. More information on the timeline will be provided at a later stage. 1. From the discussions during Meeting #16, we understand that the group believes that the forum should be closed for comments at the end of the CAP. a. We discussed the issue internally and concluded that ideally the forum should stay open for the following reasons: i. The public should have the opportunity to bring forward issues in one place at any time in a transparent manner. ii. The forum will also be used in case of change requests, which may occur after the end of the Community Action Period. Closing and reopening the forum for some applications only might pose some system challenges. To address the concerns raised, we updated the language clarifying that only the comments and responses received during the time periods specified in the AGB will be reviewed by evaluators. We hope that this solution can be agreeable. Finally, please note that we will be able to define the exact timeframe of the Community Action Period (first paragraph) only at a later stage. Many thanks and see you on the IRT call in just over an hour. Best wishes Lars