Thanks Jared. Could you please clarify what language in the current draft comes from the 2012 CPE Scoring Guidelines and was not agreed by this IRT in its earlier deliberations on the scoring? Many thanks, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 11:51 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Anne and IRT members,

The use of “quasi-official” appears to have come from the 2012 CPE Guidelines, <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-16aug13-en.pdf> appearing on page 17 next to the definition of “relevance” or “relevant.” I was incorrect below when I said this came from the 2012 AGB directly.

Thank you,

Jared

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, August 25, 2025 at 11:31 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August

Thanks Jared. was the 2012 AGB language on letters from "quasi-official" organizations reaffirmed in the Sub Pro policy work? Could you please point us to the trail on the history on that language?

Many thanks!

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> .

1. 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.

1. See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document.

2. Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.”

1. Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6.

3. Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35.

1. Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4.

4. Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses.

1. 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 their final 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

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.

Thanks Jared, for confirming that the "quasi-official" reference has been in the scoring draft for a while now without previous objections from the IRT. I appreciate the time you have taken to do this. In this regard, I have also noted in the current version of the document an earlier reference in 4-6 a. which should likely be conformed to the recent changes made to add reference to "official" and "established" organizations in the later section 4-9 e. This suggestion is made for consistency as the language actually occurs in two places in the scoring system. Absolutely agree that it is critical for the scoring system to be in the AGB this time. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 2:02 PM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Anne and IRT members,

In response to your request regarding where language from 2012 CPE Guidelines appears in the AGB text, this annotation was provided to the IRT in previous drafts along with where SubPro recommendations and implementation guidance have been addressed. Please see this draft from December 2024 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> with the relevant information (comments in-line from me). *Note*: As it relates to the “quasi-official” language specifically, this language also appears in this draft.

Early on in our discussions with the IRT on CPE, it was clear that the AGB should include the CPE guidelines, and ICANN has taken care to do so. The guidelines have been included in drafts since December and have been out for public comment both in February 2025 and again in May 2025.

As a reminder, I’d like to stress that the focus of our work now is on addressing public comments. It’s critical we focus on this task as we seek to complete the AGB in a timely and efficient manner. As I understood from our last IRT call, we were nearly complete with this, with only a couple of minor additions/changes left to make.

Thank you,

Jared

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, August 25, 2025 at 12:59 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ext] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August

Thanks Jared. Could you please clarify what language in the current draft comes from the 2012 CPE Scoring Guidelines and was not agreed by this IRT in its earlier deliberations on the scoring?

Many thanks,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 11:51 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Anne and IRT members,

The use of “quasi-official” appears to have come from the 2012 CPE Guidelines, [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/gu...> appearing on page 17 next to the definition of “relevance” or “relevant.” I was incorrect below when I said this came from the 2012 AGB directly.

Thank you,

Jared

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, August 25, 2025 at 11:31 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August

Thanks Jared. was the 2012 AGB language on letters from "quasi-official" organizations reaffirmed in the Sub Pro policy work? Could you please point us to the trail on the history on that language?

Many thanks!

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> .

1. 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.

1. See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document.

2. Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.”

1. Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6.

3. Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35.

1. Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4.

4. Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses.

1. 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 their final 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

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.

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 <mailto: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 on 14 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328106025/2025-...>, 20 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/399704065/2025-...>, and 21 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328171521/2025-...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_...>.

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 their final input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language.

Thank you,

Jared

From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

Thank you

Jared

From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org <mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto: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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

Best,

Elisa

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

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 originated from 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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC1751.34441860] On 27 Aug 2025, at 15:51, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 on 14 August<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328106025/2025-...>, 20 August<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/399704065/2025-...>, and 21 August<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328171521/2025-...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_...>. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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 their final input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> Thank you Jared From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...> Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

I concur with Anne and of course Justine here... <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 15:57, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

*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 originated from 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 on 14 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328106025/2025-...>, 20 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/399704065/2025-...>, and 21 August <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328171521/2025-...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_...> .

1. 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.

1. See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document.

2. Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.”

1. Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6.

3. Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35.

1. Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4.

4. Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses.

1. 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 their final 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

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.

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.

Thanks, all. Based on this input, I am suggesting the below. Again, that concept/language is not new as a guideline, and I think that, based on IRT input, it is important for the panel to consider this (but to your points, it is not required). The text in the table would state then: 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. 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. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 08:38 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August HI Jared, Thank you for your patience as we reflect on the current edits. While I appreciate your footnote relative to the issue of generic terms and the .COIN example raised by Elaine previously, I am concerned about the edits which state that in order to get the best scores, the applicant must demonstrate support from relevant organizations OUTSIDE the community. I don't think this is consistent with policy or prior deliberations. If the applicant demonstrates majority support within its community, that is sufficient. If there is opposition from relevant organizations outside the community, that would affect the score but we have never said that the applicant must demonstrate support from organizations outside the community in order to achieve the highest score. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:36 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 at 22:57 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I also agree with Anne’s suggestion. Susan A. From: Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:18 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August CAUTION: This email has originated from 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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC17FE.1A8DB9A0] On 27 Aug 2025, at 15:51, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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 their final input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> Thank you Jared From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...> Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

Dear Anne, I had simplified the text a bit, but it still text says: “The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition”. The footnote would be a reference to relevant organizations. Do we think there’s a meaning difference in “relevant opposition” vs. saying something like “The applicant does not have any opposition from relevant organizations”? Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 11:03 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August Thanks Jared. Did we lose the notion that the opposition would have to come from a relevant organization? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:28 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, all. Based on this input, I am suggesting the below. Again, that concept/language is not new as a guideline, and I think that, based on IRT input, it is important for the panel to consider this (but to your points, it is not required). The text in the table would state then: 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. 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. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 08:38 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August HI Jared, Thank you for your patience as we reflect on the current edits. While I appreciate your footnote relative to the issue of generic terms and the .COIN example raised by Elaine previously, I am concerned about the edits which state that in order to get the best scores, the applicant must demonstrate support from relevant organizations OUTSIDE the community. I don't think this is consistent with policy or prior deliberations. If the applicant demonstrates majority support within its community, that is sufficient. If there is opposition from relevant organizations outside the community, that would affect the score but we have never said that the applicant must demonstrate support from organizations outside the community in order to achieve the highest score. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:36 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 at 22:57 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I also agree with Anne’s suggestion. Susan A. From: Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:18 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August CAUTION: This email has originated from 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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC180B.E1EBDBF0] On 27 Aug 2025, at 15:51, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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 their final input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> Thank you Jared From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...> Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

In the absence of that, I will have to voice NCSG concerns. Best, Kathy On 8/28/2025 3:15 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand these changes.  Can someone give us the context and the original version?

Is there a redline?

Best, Kathy

On 8/28/2025 12:28 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:

...

Thanks, all.

Based on this input, I am suggesting the below. Again, that concept/language is not new as a guideline, and I think that, based on IRT input, it is important for the panel to consider this (but to your points, it is not required).

The text in the table would state then:

*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.

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.

The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.

However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale.

The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.

Thank you,

Jared

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 08:38 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August

HI Jared,

Thank you for your patience as we reflect on the current edits.  While I appreciate your footnote relative to the issue of generic terms and the .COIN example raised by Elaine previously, I am concerned about the edits which state that in order to get the best scores, the applicant must demonstrate support from relevant organizations OUTSIDE the community.  I don't think this is consistent with policy or prior deliberations.  If the applicant demonstrates majority support within its community, that is sufficient.  If there is opposition from relevant organizations outside the community, that would affect the score but we have never said that the applicant must demonstrate support from organizations outside the community in order to achieve the highest score.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:36 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

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 originated from 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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>.

1. 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.

1. See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document.

2. Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.”

1. Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6.

3. Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35.

1. Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4.

4. Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses.

1. 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 their final 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

Dear all, A brief summary of how we got here: 1. NCSG suggested edits to the Community Endorsement scoring table to align with other language in the text re: references to support (and opposition) from outside the community, if relevant 1. ICANN updated the scoring table to align. * You can see the language as it stands now (with the previous proposed edits) in the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_.... 1. Anne and Justine voiced concerns that this would seem to require outside support, which should not be required and also questioned why this would be included. 1. ICANN clarified that such references to outside support that may be needed comes from IRT discussions from January/February on how to avoid community applicants obtaining “highly generic” strings for a narrow community purpose (e.g., .COIN applied for by the “Coin family” and used only for their family). 1. Based on these concerns, including NCSG’s note agreeing that external support should not be mandatory, ICANN updated the text further (as below) to simplify the language and remove references to outside support in the main text and moved it to a “note” that references existing guidelines to make it clear that the panel may consider such situations. 1. Anne has most recently posited whether we should include reference to “relevant organizations” (as opposed to “relevant opposition”) I believe these updates align with what I’m hearing—that external support (and opposition) may be relevant in some cases and the panel should have the ability to consider that. The changes below are to reflect that and simplify the language. Thank you, Jared From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 12:15 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August I'm sorry, but I don't understand these changes. Can someone give us the context and the original version? Is there a redline? Best, Kathy On 8/28/2025 12:28 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote: Thanks, all. Based on this input, I am suggesting the below. Again, that concept/language is not new as a guideline, and I think that, based on IRT input, it is important for the panel to consider this (but to your points, it is not required). The text in the table would state then: 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. 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. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com><mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 08:38 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org><mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August HI Jared, Thank you for your patience as we reflect on the current edits. While I appreciate your footnote relative to the issue of generic terms and the .COIN example raised by Elaine previously, I am concerned about the edits which state that in order to get the best scores, the applicant must demonstrate support from relevant organizations OUTSIDE the community. I don't think this is consistent with policy or prior deliberations. If the applicant demonstrates majority support within its community, that is sufficient. If there is opposition from relevant organizations outside the community, that would affect the score but we have never said that the applicant must demonstrate support from organizations outside the community in order to achieve the highest score. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:36 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 at 22:57 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I also agree with Anne’s suggestion. Susan A. From: Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:18 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August CAUTION: This email has originated from 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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC181C.99F5B580] On 27 Aug 2025, at 15:51, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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 their final input by Wednesday, 27 August 2025 so that we can finalize the language. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 17:07 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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. 1. See here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> Thank you Jared From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 08:32 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...> Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

Dear Jared, Thank you for your clarification and my apologies for missing it in the Googledoc -- the list of comments in the Googledoc got a bit too unwieldly for me to navigate when I was reviewing the text, so I concentrated on what I saw to be redline text. Even I had not remembered that the edits were in reference to Elaine's 'coin' situation, so I trust you can appreciate that applicants will more likely than not, get distraught at *prima facie* seeing a requirement to "demonstrate support from relevant organizations outside the identified community". So, your removing that language from all four columns now is very welcomed. I think the additional paragraph of "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)." just in column 1 is a much better attempt at addressing the 'coin' situation. Thank you for that. I will have another look at the footnote and provide further comments asap, if needed. Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, all.

Based on this input, I am suggesting the below. Again, that concept/language is not new as a guideline, and I think that, based on IRT input, it is important for the panel to consider this (but to your points, it is not required).

The text in the table would state then:

*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.

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.

The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.

However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale.

The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.

Thank you,

Jared

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 08:38 *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August

HI Jared,

Thank you for your patience as we reflect on the current edits. While I appreciate your footnote relative to the issue of generic terms and the .COIN example raised by Elaine previously, I am concerned about the edits which state that in order to get the best scores, the applicant must demonstrate support from relevant organizations OUTSIDE the community. I don't think this is consistent with policy or prior deliberations. If the applicant demonstrates majority support within its community, that is sufficient. If there is opposition from relevant organizations outside the community, that would affect the score but we have never said that the applicant must demonstrate support from organizations outside the community in order to achieve the highest score.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:36 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

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 originated from 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 on 14 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, 20 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, and 21 August [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>, we have made some updates based on our call yesterday. These are described below and in the language here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...> .

1. 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.

1. See first example on page 26 (+ footnote 26) but note that they appear throughout the document.

2. Added footnote 31 on page 29 regarding “double counting.”

1. Note that we also warn of not double counting more generally in section 4.4.6.

3. Made updates to clarify language in scoring table 4-9 on page 35.

1. Note that this was done solely to align with the language above the table at the start of Section 4.7.4.4.

4. Made changes to bullet “e” on page 36 to change “reputable” to “relevant” and provide additional examples of what this means in parentheses.

1. 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 their final 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj...>

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCP...>

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.

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.