Dear Jared, Thank you for the recent clarifications regarding Criterion 4 and for incorporating “relevant organizations” and the “as applicable” qualifier. These adjustments help address concerns about both double counting and undue burdens on applicants. From the NCSG perspective, our key point remains that credible opposition must be fully evaluated by CPE panels, rather than minimized or excluded. While we agree that external support should not be mandatory, it is equally important that opposition from relevant organizations, whether inside or outside the identified community, is given due consideration. Evaluators must retain discretion to assess the significance of such objections using their expertise. This balance reflects the original intent of CPE to take a holistic view, ensuring that community input matters, particularly for noncommercial and Indigenous communities, while maintaining fairness to applicants. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El jueves, 28 de agosto de 2025, 08:36:02 a.m. GMT-5, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió: <!--#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 p.yiv3810122396MsoNormal, #yiv3810122396 li.yiv3810122396MsoNormal, #yiv3810122396 div.yiv3810122396MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv3810122396 a:link, #yiv3810122396 span.yiv3810122396MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3810122396 p.yiv3810122396m2127304197261920171m-2361729883972043405msolistparagraph, #yiv3810122396 li.yiv3810122396m2127304197261920171m-2361729883972043405msolistparagraph, #yiv3810122396 div.yiv3810122396m2127304197261920171m-2361729883972043405msolistparagraph {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv3810122396 span.yiv3810122396EmailStyle19 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv3810122396 .yiv3810122396MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 div.yiv3810122396WordSection1 {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 filtered {}#yiv3810122396 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv3810122396 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}--> Dear Justine and IRT Members, I responded to Justine’s comments which addressed similar concerns in the document, but I will put my response here as well: This came up based on discussions with the IRT back in January/February and this text and similar references have been included since. I believe the impetus were concerns that, for example, in the case where an applicant is trying to apply for a generic string and use it for a very narrow community purpose, that those outside of this community should 1) be aware of it (awareness criterion); 2) have support. To sum, the IRT felt this would address concerns regarding a “highly generic” string being used in a narrow way via a community TLD (e.g., the “Coin family” applying for .COIN). In such a case, other affected communities/organizations/groups more commonly known under that term would need to support the application. Given that this language/these concepts have been in the text since that time, and the IRT was agreed at that time, I’m not inclined to revisit this now. However, to yours and Anne’s suggestions, I have inserted the “relevant” language, but I can also add a footnote at the first instance of this to caveat what we have in the guidelines further below (“There may be cases where the applied-for string carries more than one meaning or when an applicant has identified a community that is narrower than the scope suggested by the applied-for string. In those instances, the panel should consider whether the applicant can demonstrate relevant support or no relevant opposition from outside the identified community.”). Additionally, we could add a “as applicable,” so that it would state: “The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community, as well as from relevant organizations outside the identified community, as applicable [insert footnote]” Please let me know your thoughts as soon as possible. Thank you Jared From: Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 at 22:57 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August In respect of Criterion 4: Community Endorsement I also agree with Anne's comment and suggestion for guardrails against opposition from outside the identified community by requiring that such be from relevant organizations if at all. I will go further to say that I am highly uncomfortable with adding the requirement of "demonstrated support from relevant organizations outside the identified community" in addition to "demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community". The reason for this discomfort is that the applicant must demonstrate support from the community it identified but I fail to see how we should expect the applicant to demonstrate support from outside the identified community"? If the "demonstrated support from outside the identified community" is to be taken on a case-by-case basis then this needs to be made clearer (although I do not support its addition to begin with). The way I see it, if there is opposition from outside the identified community then that would come in the form of letters of opposition or a Community Objection. It should not be an applicant's burden to demonstrate support outside of its identified community. I hope we can look at this again. Please. Thanks, Justine On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 00:51, Anthony, Susan via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: I also agree with Anne’s suggestion. Susan A. From: Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:18 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August CAUTION: This email has originatedfrom a source outside of USPTO.PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. This suggestion seems eminently sensible to me. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 On 27 Aug 2025, at 15:51, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Thanks Jared. I do also want to note that the numerous changes to Criterion 4 regarding opposition from outside the community would in fact change the weighting agreed to by the IRT. These changes would have to be modified to provide that the opposition from outside the community would need to come from relevant organizations as defined elsewhere in the scoring guidelines. The current proposed edit which emphasizes in all four boxes "opposition outside the identified community, if relevant" does not contain contain adequate guardrails against a non-community based competitor applying for the same string from organizing a storm of correspondence from the "peanut gallery" to oppose the application. It has to be clear, in accordance with prior IRT deliberations, that the question of opposition to the Community Endorsement section must come from relevant organizations as defined in the scoring, not just from any third party that doesn't like the application. Accordingly, as a compromise to Kathy's numerous suggested edits, I've suggested in the document that each of these references to "from outside the community if relevant" be changed to " from outside the community if from relevant organizations." Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 8:45 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote: Dear IRT Members, As noted, in addition to the other changes we have made the past few days which were discussed on our calls on14 August, 20 August, and 21 August, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in thelanguage here. - Added the words “and verify” to relevant guidelines: “The panel may review AND VERIFY letters of support or opposition…” We also added a footnote to reference the support/opposition verification guidelines that live under Criterion 4. These changes have been made on all guidelines for all relevant criteria. - See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document. - Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.” - Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6. - Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35. - Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4. - Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses. - I note Anne’s comment below. I understood that we wanted to keep quasi-official but add official and established.Or was the IRT suggesting to remove “quasi-official”? As a reminder, this is language from the 2012 AGB and it will be the panel’s job to verify any letters of support or opposition and review whether any seem “spurious” or “unsubstantiated.” I would kindly request IRT members to review and provide theirfinal input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language. Thank you, Jared From:Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Deck Meeting #154 Thanks Justine. I hope that you and others will review the language about "quasi-official organizations" and others weighing in on the Nexus between the community and the string applied for. Folks seem concerned about community applicants doing the gaming, but the potential for gaming is higher here because the competitor who has applied for the same string and is not a community applicant need only hire a smart lawyer to form a new "quasi-official" organization to file a letter opposing the nexus and the application. There will apparently be no requirement to disclose what money and what party is actually behind such a "quasi-official" organization. This language opens the door to the worst sort of gaming (by the non-community competitor) and we need to avoid it. Wish we could all keep in mind that for legitimate objectors, we have the Community Objection. I don't think anyone on the IRT should be trying to save an Objector from having to file. It's the remedy that Sub Pro affirmed. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Dear Jared, Thanks for this but I'm afraid I can't make the call later and hence request for time over the weekend to provide comments to the language changes you speak of and any further changes arising from today's call. Kind regards, Justine --------- On Fri, 22 Aug 2025, 00:01 Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT, <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Dear IRT members, Also wanted to note that we have made changes to the CPE language based on our discussion yesterday. We can review those changes today. - See here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_... [docs.google.com] Thank you Jared From:Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Deck Meeting #154 Hello IRT members, Just a quick note to let you know that we have published the deck for the call today:https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCPEw [icann-community.atlassian.net] Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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.
