Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application
Hi Jared and All, Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “*independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.*” That’s true. /How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “*CPE Clarifying Questions*” of 4.4.5.1?/ We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended. We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58):“/ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.”/ We have worked hard, as requested, to help. ----------------- 1. First, the SubPro Recommendations: *Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.”*(Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement) *Recommendation 34.19:* *“Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, /must be considered in balance with documented support for the application/.” *(emphasis added) II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received. 1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21“The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: *The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond*.” 2. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in *4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions*. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19) *(Referencing: 4.4.5.1: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”)* We further note SubPro WG’s /Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: /“The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.” 3. As requested, we share the following edits /to the CPE Scoring Criteria/ of 4.4.6, as necessary ways toimplement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5.Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6. Thus: *III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits* 4. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ●“and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant *and in letters of opposition and support.” * 5. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials*presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.*** 6. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ●“and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials *presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.** * 7. 4.4.7.1.4Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ●A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate therecognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, includingthrough appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and supportfor the application.” 8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ●A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” 9. 4.4.7.2 Nexus Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary. To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): we suggest addition of subsection f: ●The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.” 10. 4.4.7.4Criterion 4: Community Endorsement This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding: 1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add:=> “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered *in balance* with documented support for the application.” 2. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically:To subsection b: ●Change:“The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.” ●To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it *must consider *letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application. 3. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment: ●“The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19] IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language. —------------------ Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercialorganizations that rely on fair andculturally competent evaluation processes. Best regards, Kathy and Juan Attachment:This doc in Word format
HI Kathy, Thanks for all the hard work. In two sections, there are references to the scoring which do not reflect policy in that it clear under the policy that a community may be established through expert testimony and does not require wide recognition. The most problematic language in this regard is shown below: 7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? 8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? In addition, although I have not had much time to review your proposed text, I do have questions about your reference to the opinions of "reputable" organizations as potentially overriding the scoring process. See you soon! Anne \ Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:32 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jared and All,
Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “*independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.*” That’s true.
*How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “CPE Clarifying Questions” of 4.4.5.1?*
We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended.
We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58): “*ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.”*
We have worked hard, as requested, to help.
-----------------
1. First, the SubPro Recommendations:
*Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.”* (Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement)
*Recommendation 34.19:* *“Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” *(emphasis added)
II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received.
1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21 “The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: *The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond*.”
2. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in *4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions*. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19)
*(Referencing: 4.4.5.1 <http://4.4.5.1>: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”)*
We further note SubPro WG’s *Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: *“The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.”
3. As requested, we share the following edits *to the CPE Scoring Criteria* of 4.4.6, as necessary ways to implement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5. Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6.
Thus:
*III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits*
4. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization
To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant *and in letters of opposition and support.” *
5. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement
To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials* presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.*
6. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness
To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials *presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.*
7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.”
8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.”
9. 4.4.7.2 Nexus
Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary.
To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
we suggest addition of subsection f:
● The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.”
10. 4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding:
1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add: => “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered *in balance* with documented support for the application.”
2. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically: To subsection b:
● Change: “The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.”
● To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it *must consider *letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application.
3. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment:
● “The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19]
IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language.
—------------------
Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercial organizations that rely on fair and culturally competent evaluation processes.
Best regards, Kathy and Juan
Attachment: This doc in Word format
_______________________________________________ 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.
From an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective, I would be concerned about disproportionate reliance on Internet searches – and I’m not sure what “appropriate Internet searches” means. Internet searches on Tribes can often be misleading or inadequate. Would “independent research using Expert [or maybe “recognized”] resources” – accompanied by elimination of “through appropriate internet searches” be better? I also have no idea what a “reputable organization” is." Thanks, Susan A. From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:34 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. HI Kathy, Thanks for all the hard work. In two sections, there are references to the scoring which do not reflect policy in that it clear under the policy that a community may be established through expert testimony and does not require wide recognition. The most problematic language in this regard is shown below: 1. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? 1. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? In addition, although I have not had much time to review your proposed text, I do have questions about your reference to the opinions of "reputable" organizations as potentially overriding the scoring process. See you soon! Anne \ Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:32 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Jared and All, Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.” That’s true. How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “CPE Clarifying Questions” of 4.4.5.1? We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended. We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58): “ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.” We have worked hard, as requested, to help. ----------------- 1. First, the SubPro Recommendations: Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.” (Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement) Recommendation 34.19: “Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” (emphasis added) II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received. 1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21 “The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond.” 1. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in 4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19) (Referencing: 4.4.5.1<http://4.4.5.1/>: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”) We further note SubPro WG’s Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: “The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.” 1. As requested, we share the following edits to the CPE Scoring Criteria of 4.4.6, as necessary ways to implement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5. Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6. Thus: III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits 1. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.” 1. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. 1. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. 1. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.2 Nexus Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary. To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): we suggest addition of subsection f: ● The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding: 1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add: => “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” 1. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically: To subsection b: ● Change: “The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.” ● To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it must consider letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application. 1. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment: ● “The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19] IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language. —------------------ Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercial organizations that rely on fair and culturally competent evaluation processes. Best regards, Kathy and Juan Attachment: This doc in Word format _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anthony, Susan <Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov> Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Kathy Kleiman < Kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Anthony, Susan < Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov> From an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective, I would be concerned about disproportionate reliance on Internet searches – and I’m not sure what “appropriate Internet searches” means. Internet searches on Tribes can often be misleading or inadequate. Would “independent research using Expert [or maybe “recognized”] resources” – accompanied by elimination of “through appropriate internet searches” be better? I also have no idea what a “reputable organization” is." Thanks, Susan A. *From:* Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:34 PM *To:* Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. *PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE* before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. HI Kathy, Thanks for all the hard work. In two sections, there are references to the scoring which do not reflect policy in that it clear under the policy that a community may be established through expert testimony and does not require wide recognition. The most problematic language in this regard is shown below: 7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? 8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? In addition, although I have not had much time to review your proposed text, I do have questions about your reference to the opinions of "reputable" organizations as potentially overriding the scoring process. See you soon! Anne \ Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:32 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi Jared and All, Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “*independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.*” That’s true. *How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “CPE Clarifying Questions” of 4.4.5.1?* We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended. We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58): “*ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.”* We have worked hard, as requested, to help. ----------------- 1. First, the SubPro Recommendations: *Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.”* (Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement) *Recommendation 34.19:* *“Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” *(emphasis added) II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received. 1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21 “The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: *The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond*.” 2. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in *4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions*. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19) *(Referencing: 4.4.5.1 <http://4.4.5.1/>: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”)* We further note SubPro WG’s *Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: *“The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.” 3. As requested, we share the following edits *to the CPE Scoring Criteria* of 4.4.6, as necessary ways to implement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5. Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6. Thus: *III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits* 4. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant *and in letters of opposition and support.” * 5. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials* presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.* 6. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials *presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.* 7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” 8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” 9. 4.4.7.2 Nexus Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary. To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): we suggest addition of subsection f: ● The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.” 10. 4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding: 1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add: => “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered *in balance* with documented support for the application.” 2. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically: To subsection b: ● Change: “The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.” ● To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it *must consider *letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application. 3. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment: ● “The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19] IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language. —------------------ Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercial organizations that rely on fair and culturally competent evaluation processes. Best regards, Kathy and Juan Attachment: This doc in Word format _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Anne, Susan, and IRT members, It seemed ICANN was having an issue with emails sent from external parties, but I believe it is now resolved. Apologies for the confusion earlier! We have the emails and will review. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 13:08 To: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Fwd: Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anthony, Susan <Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov<mailto:Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov>> Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>>, Anthony, Susan <Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov<mailto:Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov>> From an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective, I would be concerned about disproportionate reliance on Internet searches – and I’m not sure what “appropriate Internet searches” means. Internet searches on Tribes can often be misleading or inadequate. Would “independent research using Expert [or maybe “recognized”] resources” – accompanied by elimination of “through appropriate internet searches” be better? I also have no idea what a “reputable organization” is." Thanks, Susan A. From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:34 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. HI Kathy, Thanks for all the hard work. In two sections, there are references to the scoring which do not reflect policy in that it clear under the policy that a community may be established through expert testimony and does not require wide recognition. The most problematic language in this regard is shown below: 1. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? 1. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT? In addition, although I have not had much time to review your proposed text, I do have questions about your reference to the opinions of "reputable" organizations as potentially overriding the scoring process. See you soon! Anne \ Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:32 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Jared and All, Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.” That’s true. How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “CPE Clarifying Questions” of 4.4.5.1? We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended. We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58): “ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.” We have worked hard, as requested, to help. ----------------- 1. First, the SubPro Recommendations: Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.” (Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement) Recommendation 34.19: “Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” (emphasis added) II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received. 1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21 “The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond.” 1. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in 4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19) (Referencing: 4.4.5.1 [4.4.5.1]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/4.4.5.1/__;!!PtGJab4!5u2pqKEtySbo0N_ACxYBw...>: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”) We further note SubPro WG’s Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: “The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.” 1. As requested, we share the following edits to the CPE Scoring Criteria of 4.4.6, as necessary ways to implement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5. Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6. Thus: III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits 1. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support.” 1. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. 1. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. 1. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): ● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.2 Nexus Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary. To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): we suggest addition of subsection f: ● The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.” 1. 4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding: 1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add: => “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” 1. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically: To subsection b: ● Change: “The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.” ● To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it must consider letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application. 1. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment: ● “The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19] IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language. —------------------ Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercial organizations that rely on fair and culturally competent evaluation processes. Best regards, Kathy and Juan Attachment: This doc in Word format _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Many thanks Jared. As noted in the zoom meeting, Implementation Guidance 34.4 and 34.5 are quite important here. I gave the example of the Fulani peoples who inhabit central Africa from Senegal to Chad (across several countries). There are apparently millions who speak fula and they have different tribal names, e.g. Mbororo. (Incidentally, members of the Fulani peoples have also held prominent positions, e.g. Deputy Secretary of the UN, former President of Nigeria, etc.) So if the Mbororo apply for community status for .fula (a language apparently spoken by millions), it would likely take an expert to evaluate the community and to recognize that more than one entity can represent a community as further explained in Implementation Guidance 34.4 and 34.5. Again, we all view these linguistic and cultural communities as unlikely to apply at this time because they have much more pressing issues and in some cases, very limited resources. But we are implementing policy for the long term... Thank you for all the hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Anne, Susan, and IRT members,
It seemed ICANN was having an issue with emails sent from external parties, but I believe it is now resolved. Apologies for the confusion earlier! We have the emails and will review.
Thank you,
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 13:08 *To: *Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Fwd: Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Anthony, Susan* <Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov> Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Kathy Kleiman < Kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Anthony, Susan < Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov>
From an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective, I would be concerned about disproportionate reliance on Internet searches – and I’m not sure what “appropriate Internet searches” means. Internet searches on Tribes can often be misleading or inadequate. Would “independent research using Expert [or maybe “recognized”] resources” – accompanied by elimination of “through appropriate internet searches” be better?
I also have no idea what a “reputable organization” is."
Thanks, Susan A.
*From:* Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:34 PM *To:* Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Requested edits on independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application
CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. *PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE* before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
HI Kathy,
Thanks for all the hard work. In two sections, there are references to the scoring which do not reflect policy in that it clear under the policy that a community may be established through expert testimony and does not require wide recognition.
The most problematic language in this regard is shown below:
7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT?
8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.” WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHMENT VIA AN EXPERT?
In addition, although I have not had much time to review your proposed text, I do have questions about your reference to the opinions of "reputable" organizations as potentially overriding the scoring process.
See you soon!
Anne
\
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:32 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jared and All,
Thank you for the robust discussion on Thursday and review of comments and concerns about independent research. As you noted in the slides of Thursday and our discussion, SubPro Rec 34.21 provides for “*independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application.*” That’s true.
*How else can the Panel best evaluate the application, and the letters of opposition and support, as the Panel must? How else can they prepare and evaluate the “CPE Clarifying Questions” of 4.4.5.1?*
We appreciate your closing comment at the end of the call asking for specific wording input. We also appreciate Cheryl’s edits to the text below. The proposed wording does not change scoring, but opens it to the broader research we discussed last Thursday and that the SubPro WG recommended.
We follow the closing comment of Thursday’s slides (p58): “*ICANN suggests that changes could be made to clarify the role of the panel as well as the role of the applicant’s claims. Further ICANN can clarify the language regarding ‘independent research’ and expectations for what the means.”*
We have worked hard, as requested, to help.
-----------------
1. First, the SubPro Recommendations:
*Recommendation 34.21: “If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.”* (Note: Implementation guidance 34.22 further strengthens this requirement)
*Recommendation 34.19:* *“Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any, must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” *(emphasis added)
II. Our recommendations for additions, clarifications, and a few edits are consistent with these recommendations, Jared’s invitation, and we think, the many comments received.
1. Recommend inserting into the broad language of 4.4.5 Community Priority Evaluation Outcomes, the specific language from SubPro Rec 34.21 “The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: *The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the Limited Research”), provided however that the evaluator shall disclose the result of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have the opportunity to respond*.”
2. We note that many of the changes below will help the Panel in * 4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions*. This section empowers the panel to issue questions not only to the CPE applicant but to those writing letters of opposition. Clearly, the panel will need to do the independent research it deems necessary to ask the right questions, and balance and weigh the answers (as required by Rec. 34.19)
*(Referencing: 4.4.5.1 [4.4.5.1] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/4.4.5.1/__;!!PtGJab4!5u2pqKEtySbo0N_ACxYBw...>: “The panel may issue CPE Clarifying Questions to applicants for applications participating in CPE. Clarifying Questions may also be directed to a person or entity that submitted a letter of opposition to a CPE applicant.”)*
We further note SubPro WG’s *Rationale for Recommendations 34.17 and 34.18: *“The Working Group believes, however, that evaluators should have additional resources at their disposal to gather information about a CPE application and any opposition to that application.”
3. As requested, we share the following edits *to the CPE Scoring Criteria* of 4.4.6, as necessary ways to implement the broad direction and important tasks given to the CPE Panel 4.4.5. Broad language is good, but the “rubber hits the road” in the specifics of CPE Scoring in 4.4.6.
Thus:
*III. Specific CPE Scoring Guidelines Edits*
4. 4.4.7.1.1 Organization
To Guidelines d. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials presented by the applicant *and in letters of opposition and support.” *
5. 4.4.7.1.2 Engagement
To Guidelines e. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments): => “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials* presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. *
6. 4.4.7.1.3 Awareness
To Guidelines b. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● “and other independent research deemed necessary to evaluate this section of the application in light of the materials *presented by the applicant and in letters of opposition and support. *
7. 4.4.7.1.4 Established Presence
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: ”The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the recognition of the identified community by those outside of the identified community, including through appropriate Internet searches, and evaluation of those submitting letters of opposition and support for the application.”
8. 4.4.7.1.5 Longevity
To Guidelines c. We recommend adding (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
● A new sentence: “The Panel is expressly empowered to engage in the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the longevity of the applicant, including appropriate Internet searches, and review of letters of opposition and support for the application.”
9. 4.4.7.2 Nexus
Note: Nexus has been described by ICANN Staff as a critical place in which outside input may join the evaluation of this CPE application. We agree, and to that end, offer the following language to clarify the independent research in which the panel may engage, should it seem necessary.
To Guidelines, after e. (consistent with 34.19 and 34.21 above & comments):
we suggest addition of subsection f:
● The Panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate the evidence provided by the community in its letters of opposition and support and to assist in properly consider, in balance, the “letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,” with the “documented support for the application.”
10. 4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
This CPE Scoring Criterion, as ICANN Staff has pointed out, is particularly important for public input and clarifying the role of the SubPro Recommendations on independent research will help.. To Guidelines for the scoring of support and opposition, consistent with policy and comments, we recommend adding:
1. In subsection a: After “does not have any relevant opposition,” to meet Rec 34.19 and 34.21 requirements and to truly evaluate and weigh the letters of support and opposition, add: => “Letters of opposition to a community-based application must be considered *in balance* with documented support for the application.”
2. Subsection b, to meet the call of Rec 34.19 and 34.21, in this limited case, we recommend a change to the language, specifically: To subsection b:
● Change: “The panel should consider any objections or comments from this application round noting opposition. While these will be assessed, they do not automatically influence the Opposition score.”
● To: The panel may perform the independent research it deems necessary to evaluate this section of the application, and it *must consider *letters of opposition to the application, if any, in balance with the documented support for the application.
3. To subsection e, we propose an edit to not unduly limit the scope of the panel assessment:
● “The panel should assess whether reputable organizations… oppose the proposal and such opposition “must be considered in balance with the documented support for the application.” [Rec 34.19]
IV. Finally, and pursuant to the SubPro Recs and implementation guidance, we think additional wording should be added to more clearly guide the Panel on how it communicates its limited research results to the applicant and writers of letters of opposition as required by policy. We defer to ICANN Staff for this procedural language.
—------------------
Thank you for your review and consideration for the protection of vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, linguistic groups, minorities and non-commercial organizations that rely on fair and culturally competent evaluation processes.
Best regards, Kathy and Juan
Attachment: This doc in Word format
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Anthony, Susan -
Jared Erwin -
Kathy Kleiman