I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online. So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings: "4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement "Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time] "Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote] "An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:" ==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now. On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES: * Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both. ** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating. *** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here. **** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense. Best regards, Kathy -------------------- (Moved from above) Dear IRT members, I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing. FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ 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 tosubpro-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.