Anne, Sorry to have missed you on the calls recently. But there were a bunch of things in the SubPro report that would have accounted for external recognition, including actual scoring from 1-4 of certain elements as opposed to a pass/fail like we have now. In addition, the combination of the ICANN Board decision on “content”, and the removal of the community being “pre-existing” for essentially five (5) years, it inadvertently did away with things like (a) an “understanding of the communities existence prior to September 2007”, and (b) in Criterion 2 which scored whether the “Name” of the community means the established name by which the community is commonly known *by others*; and (c) Nexus where to get a score of 3 (at the time) the essential aspect is that the applied-for string is commonly known *by others* as the identification / name of the community. Also look at IG 34.6: *34.6: “In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, text regarding CPE Criterion 2-A Nexus includes guidance on scoring in relation to the criterion. Corresponding text included in the Evaluation Guidelines should be more specific and clear regarding scoring to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. The Working Group suggests the following text to include in the Evaluation Guidelines: “With respect to “Nexus”, for a score of 3, the essential aspect is that the applied-for string matches the name of the community. Where an exact match is not established but the applied-for string is established as commonly known by others as a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it will also be eligible for a score of 3. Where the applied-for string does not match the name of the community or is not a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it may score a 2 if it identifies the community – i.e. closely describes either the community or a reasonably understood boundary of the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. An applied-for string which identified the community but over-reaches substantially into a community will score a zero.” [emphasis added]* And 34.8: *The Evaluation Guidelines regarding Criterion 2-B Uniqueness should make clear that evaluators should not be making a qualitative assessment of whether the a term is the most appropriate or descriptive term for a given community compared to other possible terms. Instead, they should be examining whether this is a term that the public in general associates with this community as opposed to another meaning. [Emphasis Added]* So, it is not correct to state that recognition by others externally was not in the SubPro recommendations. Sure it was not called out as a separate element in the SubPro Report, but it was included in the scoring structure that was approved by SubPro. When you strip the scoring to a 1 or 0 (or essentially a pass/fail) instead of 0-4, as happened here, then inadverantly this recognition by others was left out and would create the weird situation of only requiring a community to be known by its members and not known to anyone else….which makes no sense and is not in line with the SubPro Recommendations OR the original 2007 GNSO policy. Sincerely, Jeff *From:* Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:02 PM *To:* Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language Thanks Jared. I don't think there is anything in the Sub Pro Final Report that supports a requirement to demonstrate "global recognition" in connection with CPE scoring. In fact, the references in the Implementation Guidance and the rationale for same make it clear that community recognition can actually be established with the use of experts. Please double check the work done against the Topic 34 Implementation Guidance. In a cursory review of the Final Report, I did not see a reference to a requirement for establishing external recognition of the community. (I am not opposed to "external recognition" in theory, but "global" was never in our deliberations for CPE scoring as far as I know.) Further, we need to keep in mind that the policy encouraging Community applications and Community Priority was Affirmed by the WG. " *"Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.4: The Working Group supports leveraging experts with knowledge of the communities in question in determining if there is the requisite “awareness and recognition” among members of the community, especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable (e.g., where such recognition is prevented by national law).* *Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.5: The Working Group emphasizes that the Evaluation Guidelines should not be interpreted for scoring purposes to mean that there can only be one entity to administer a community. The Evaluation Guidelines should further be clear that an organization that serves as a representative (as opposed to an administrator) of the community should be treated on equal footing with one that is administrative in nature. The Working Group believes that the Evaluation Guidelines should be clearer in this regard. "* Thank you, Anne nne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 9:27 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, As a reminder, following our discussion on Tuesday, please review the CPE draft and provide any comments on the google (redline) document linked below. We will also begin work on updating based on the IRT’s feedback ahead of our next call on this topic on 29 April 2025. I understand there were also questions on CPE/Community Registration Policies on the call yesterday, and we will make sure any updates made in relation to Topic 9 will also be reflected in the CPE section, as needed/relevant. Thank you Jared *From: *Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 10:40 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Updated CPE AGB Language Dear IRT Members, For our call today, 15 April 2025, at 18:00 UTC, here are the links to the updated CPE Language: - Google doc: EXT_Topic 34_Community Priority Evaluation_Draft AGB Language_v3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16Hopw-yFMbU30...> - PDF: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> Thank you and speak with you soon. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org _______________________________________________ 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.

Anne, Unfortunately, I was not on that call or I just missed that discussion. I did not realize that the issue was only with the word “global” as opposed to the external sources. I do agree that not all communities are global and therefore I agree with the objections to that word. Sincerely, Jeff *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 21, 2025 7:26 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language Thanks Jeff. Again, I don't object to external recognition. In the document and in the text to which you responded, I objected to a requirement to show "*global* external recognition". In the example raised by Justine with respect to languages on the call last week and in my follow-up example on that same call regarding the lakota language, it's clear that tthe indigenous tribes that speak lakota as a native language (of which there are 7 Sioux tribes) would not have "global" recognition of this language community. It's a big mistake for ICANN to exclude indigenous language communities that are not "globally" known. And there is plenty of evidence of commercial misappropriation of indigenous IP that could fuel a competing application. I was on the last CPE call last week where objections were raised to the term "global" in the revised CPE scoring. Did I miss you on that call? I'll quote again from our Sub Pro Final Report Implementation Guidance the following important sentence: *"In fact, the references in the Implementation Guidance and the rationale for same make it clear that community recognition can actually be established with the use of experts."* Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:55 PM Jeff Neuman <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote: Anne, Sorry to have missed you on the calls recently. But there were a bunch of things in the SubPro report that would have accounted for external recognition, including actual scoring from 1-4 of certain elements as opposed to a pass/fail like we have now. In addition, the combination of the ICANN Board decision on “content”, and the removal of the community being “pre-existing” for essentially five (5) years, it inadvertently did away with things like (a) an “understanding of the communities existence prior to September 2007”, and (b) in Criterion 2 which scored whether the “Name” of the community means the established name by which the community is commonly known *by others*; and (c) Nexus where to get a score of 3 (at the time) the essential aspect is that the applied-for string is commonly known *by others* as the identification / name of the community. Also look at IG 34.6: *34.6: “In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, text regarding CPE Criterion 2-A Nexus includes guidance on scoring in relation to the criterion. Corresponding text included in the Evaluation Guidelines should be more specific and clear regarding scoring to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. The Working Group suggests the following text to include in the Evaluation Guidelines: “With respect to “Nexus”, for a score of 3, the essential aspect is that the applied-for string matches the name of the community. Where an exact match is not established but the applied-for string is established as commonly known by others as a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it will also be eligible for a score of 3. Where the applied-for string does not match the name of the community or is not a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community, it may score a 2 if it identifies the community – i.e. closely describes either the community or a reasonably understood boundary of the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. An applied-for string which identified the community but over-reaches substantially into a community will score a zero.” [emphasis added]* And 34.8: *The Evaluation Guidelines regarding Criterion 2-B Uniqueness should make clear that evaluators should not be making a qualitative assessment of whether the a term is the most appropriate or descriptive term for a given community compared to other possible terms. Instead, they should be examining whether this is a term that the public in general associates with this community as opposed to another meaning. [Emphasis Added]* So, it is not correct to state that recognition by others externally was not in the SubPro recommendations. Sure it was not called out as a separate element in the SubPro Report, but it was included in the scoring structure that was approved by SubPro. When you strip the scoring to a 1 or 0 (or essentially a pass/fail) instead of 0-4, as happened here, then inadverantly this recognition by others was left out and would create the weird situation of only requiring a community to be known by its members and not known to anyone else….which makes no sense and is not in line with the SubPro Recommendations OR the original 2007 GNSO policy. Sincerely, Jeff *From:* Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:02 PM *To:* Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language Thanks Jared. I don't think there is anything in the Sub Pro Final Report that supports a requirement to demonstrate "global recognition" in connection with CPE scoring. In fact, the references in the Implementation Guidance and the rationale for same make it clear that community recognition can actually be established with the use of experts. Please double check the work done against the Topic 34 Implementation Guidance. In a cursory review of the Final Report, I did not see a reference to a requirement for establishing external recognition of the community. (I am not opposed to "external recognition" in theory, but "global" was never in our deliberations for CPE scoring as far as I know.) Further, we need to keep in mind that the policy encouraging Community applications and Community Priority was Affirmed by the WG. " *"Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.4: The Working Group supports leveraging experts with knowledge of the communities in question in determining if there is the requisite “awareness and recognition” among members of the community, especially in cases where recognition of the community is not measurable (e.g., where such recognition is prevented by national law).* *Rationale for Implementation Guidance 34.5: The Working Group emphasizes that the Evaluation Guidelines should not be interpreted for scoring purposes to mean that there can only be one entity to administer a community. The Evaluation Guidelines should further be clear that an organization that serves as a representative (as opposed to an administrator) of the community should be treated on equal footing with one that is administrative in nature. The Working Group believes that the Evaluation Guidelines should be clearer in this regard. "* Thank you, Anne nne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 9:27 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, As a reminder, following our discussion on Tuesday, please review the CPE draft and provide any comments on the google (redline) document linked below. We will also begin work on updating based on the IRT’s feedback ahead of our next call on this topic on 29 April 2025. I understand there were also questions on CPE/Community Registration Policies on the call yesterday, and we will make sure any updates made in relation to Topic 9 will also be reflected in the CPE section, as needed/relevant. Thank you Jared *From: *Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 10:40 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Updated CPE AGB Language Dear IRT Members, For our call today, 15 April 2025, at 18:00 UTC, here are the links to the updated CPE Language: - Google doc: EXT_Topic 34_Community Priority Evaluation_Draft AGB Language_v3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16Hopw-yFMbU30...> - PDF: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> Thank you and speak with you soon. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi All, There was some question about scoring of the CPE and the ability of communities to pass. I invite you to join me in reviewing the CPE scoring -- and how communities (commercial and noncommercial) could respond to requests of the GAC and others. Collectively, we know a lot about how communities operate. Feel free to let me know privately or publicly and I'll put together a group for next week. Best, Kathy

Thanks Kathy. Happy to join this group. My community knowledge lies mostly in the area of US-based indigenous communities and related cultural misappropriation. Regarding the current CPE draft, the provision requiring "global" recognition of the community is not supported by the Sub Pro Final Report, which makes it very clear that the external recognition of the community can be established by the support of experts. It would be good for all who wish to join this group to review the CPE topic in the attached Final Report before the call you want to organize. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 8:55 AM Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

I'm interested. Thanks Kathy

Elaine

On 4/18/25, 8:02 AM, "Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote:

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi All,

There was some question about scoring of the CPE and the ability of communities to pass. I invite you to join me in reviewing the CPE scoring -- and how communities (commercial and noncommercial) could respond to requests of the GAC and others. Collectively, we know a lot about how communities operate.

Feel free to let me know privately or publicly and I'll put together a group for next week.

Best, Kathy

_______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/18krQpGv14fjkqvl_vvaEYy6trk7b-boa30hD155V8T8o0P... < https://secure-web.cisco.com/18krQpGv14fjkqvl_vvaEYy6trk7b-boa30hD155V8T8o0P...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fgV-KjJdwOgbhlkmMzukHRc5t2s_BZlN_w2oE8Qn8Jnyjy... < https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fgV-KjJdwOgbhlkmMzukHRc5t2s_BZlN_w2oE8Qn8Jnyjy...>). 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.

Hi Anne, Thanks for this comment. I think one solution may be to remove “sole organizing body” as a requirement for full points under Criterion 4. Instead, to get full points on Criterion 4, you must show majority support. In this way, an applicant that is not the “sole organizing body” does not lose points in both places. To be clear, the reason for awarding such applicants those points is because being the “sole organizing body” is the clearest indicator of an applicant’s connection to/support from the identified community. But, as “sole organizing body” is inherently more related to Criterion 1 on Community Establishment/organization and given concerns regarding double-counting, we can remove that as a requirement for Criterion 4, as noted above. Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, April 26, 2025 at 12:53 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE AGB Language Hi Jared, I'm not sure of the best way to put this comment in the CPE document so I am sending it to you and the list. In the current CPE draft, there appears to be double counting of a possible negative factor in contravention of the Sub Pro Final Report, i.e. references to "Sole organizing body" (and associated scoring) in both Criterion 1 Organization and Criterion 4 Community Endorsement. The Sub Pro Implementation Guidance states: Implementation Guidance 34.10: The following text included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook Section 4.2.3 Community Priority Evaluation Criteria should also be incorporated into the CPE Evaluation Guidelines: “The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has been taken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion should only be counted there and should not affect the assessment for other criteria.” Thus, it appears as though an applicant who is not the "sole organizing body" loses points on that basis twice and that was not supposed to happen in this round. How can we alleviate this "double-counting" issue? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 9:27 AM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As a reminder, following our discussion on Tuesday, please review the CPE draft and provide any comments on the google (redline) document linked below. We will also begin work on updating based on the IRT’s feedback ahead of our next call on this topic on 29 April 2025. I understand there were also questions on CPE/Community Registration Policies on the call yesterday, and we will make sure any updates made in relation to Topic 9 will also be reflected in the CPE section, as needed/relevant. Thank you Jared From: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 10:40 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Updated CPE AGB Language Dear IRT Members, For our call today, 15 April 2025, at 18:00 UTC, here are the links to the updated CPE Language: * Google doc: EXT_Topic 34_Community Priority Evaluation_Draft AGB Language_v3 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16Hopw-yFMbU30...> * PDF: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> Thank you and speak with you soon. Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.