Re: Updated CPE Language for review by EOD Today August 29
Dear IRT members, I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided by EOD today (23:59 UTC). ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing. FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now. Thank you, Jared 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: Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 To: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August Thank you Juan and all, I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online. So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings: "4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement "Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time] "Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote] "An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:" ==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now. On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES: * Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both. ** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating. *** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here. **** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense. Best regards, Kathy -------------------- (Moved from above) Dear IRT members, I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing. FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Jared, all, Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message. More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*. I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out. *Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis. I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point. [image: image.png] After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org> 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 ---- At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be: 41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email) Which is where I come to Part B. *Part B. Existence of opposition* On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below: [image: image.png] *Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition* *3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition * *2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition* *0 - Applicant does not have majority support* The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** *The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?* Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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 Justine, Jared, All, I think we are converging, and I think we have converged. Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see: *(1) Table:* Justine wrote: *_<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added] [Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.] Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>> [Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.] /----------------------/ (2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). /Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? / From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email: <<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>> /(Replacing Jared's new note: <</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)>> /*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? */ /----------------------/ (3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. * Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense. Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations." *---------* (4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)* Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[/Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 relevantminority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevantsignificant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*_Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant_* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "/..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable/". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} _as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable_ {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations _outside_ the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
image.png
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jared Erwin* <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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.(taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*_Part B. Existence of opposition_*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
image.png
*_Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*____
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *____
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*____
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*____
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. ____
____
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*____
____
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).____
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. ____
____
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**____
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. ____
____
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***____
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****____
__
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy: The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community. Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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.
In short, i oppose the deletion of "relevant" before the word "opposition". This is contrary to Implementation Guidance 34.5 which confirms that more than one entity may properly represent a community. An entity within the community could oppose simply because it prefers to have the string itself and failed to apply, In that case, its opposition is not relevant. This is up to the expert evaluator to determine based on Jared's original draft of the footnote on relevance. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 1:07 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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.
Anne, The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that. I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant. Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *_<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
/----------------------/
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). /Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? /
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
/(Replacing Jared's new note: <</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)>>
/*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? */
/----------------------/
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[/Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 relevantminority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevantsignificant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*_Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant_* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "/..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable/". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} _as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable_ {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations _outside_ the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
image.png
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jared Erwin* <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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.(taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*_Part B. Existence of opposition_*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
image.png
*_Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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 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.
Kathy, I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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 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.
Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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 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.
Then I think we are all in agreement! On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy
On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *_<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
/----------------------/
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). /Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? /
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
/(Replacing Jared's new note: <</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)>>
/*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? */
/----------------------/
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[/Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 relevantminority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevantsignificant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*_Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant_* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "/..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable/". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} _as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable_ {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations _outside_ the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
image.png
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jared Erwin* <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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.(taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*_Part B. Existence of opposition_*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
image.png
*_Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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 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 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.
That is the table with the CAPS and Justine's edit to column 4; keeping the double relevant, with the new footnote moved to the Guidelines -- because it is only one example of relevant -- and not the one that many public comments we received were trying to address. Happy to repost the table if it would help. Best, Kathy On 9/2/2025 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Then I think we are all in agreement!
On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy
On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *_<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
/----------------------/
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). /Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? /
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
/(Replacing Jared's new note: <</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)>>
/*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? */
/----------------------/
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 anyrelevantopposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[/Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 relevantminority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevantsignificant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*_Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant_* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "/..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable/". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} _as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable_ {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations _outside_ the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
image.png
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jared Erwin* <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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.(taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*_Part B. Existence of opposition_*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
image.png
*_Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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 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 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.
Thanks, all. Appreciate the collaboration and detailed emails on this. I think my reference to a footnote/notes may have indeed been confusing. But, based on this chain, I think we are all converging. Kathy—could you kindly repost the table based on all the input/changes/agreements? I think that would indeed be helpful. FWIW, agree about adding the guideline, though would like to note that I think it is generally already all there, but we can try to clarify further/add what may be missing. Best Jared From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 11:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by EOD Today August 29 That is the table with the CAPS and Justine's edit to column 4; keeping the double relevant, with the new footnote moved to the Guidelines -- because it is only one example of relevant -- and not the one that many public comments we received were trying to address. Happy to repost the table if it would help. Best, Kathy On 9/2/2025 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote: Then I think we are all in agreement! On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote: Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: Kathy, I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Anne, The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that. I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant. Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote: Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy: The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community. Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Justine, Jared, All, I think we are converging, and I think we have converged. Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see: (1) Table: Justine wrote: <<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. >> [bold added] [Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.] Justine also wrote: <<Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. >> [Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.] ---------------------- (2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email: <<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>> (Replacing Jared's new note: <<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)>> To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? ---------------------- (3) Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense. Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations." --------- (4) Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4) Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be: 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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. [Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend, Kathy On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear Jared, all, Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message. More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a question in conclusion in part C below. I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out. Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis. I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations outside the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point. [cid:image001.png@01DC1BFB.C3B85110] After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> 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>> 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 ---- At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be: 41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email) Which is where I come to Part B. Part B. Existence of opposition On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below: [cid:image002.png@01DC1BFB.C3B85110] Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted? 4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition 3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition 2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition 0 - Applicant does not have majority support The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online. So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings: "4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement "Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time] "Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote] "An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:" ==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now. On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote: 4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition 3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition 2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition 0 - Applicant does not have majority support The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** NOTES: * Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both. ** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating. *** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here. **** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense. Best regards, Kathy -------------------- (Moved from above) Dear IRT members, I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided by EOD today (23:59 UTC). ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing. FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now. ------------------- Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com><mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 To: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com><mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org><mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August Thank you Juan and all, I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Jared and All, As requested, I share the results of our collaboration and detailed emails -- hopefully capturing the bouncing ball where it landed. I share two tables to show the progression -- Justine's table in her email 8/30 (below) and the current table (above) keeping Justine's deletion in Column 4, the double "relevants" and noting Jared's offer to relocate his new footnote. Overall, I tried to include the inputs/changes/agreements as Jared asked. Best, Kathy _Table 9/2_
*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 opposition form either within the identified community or from relevant organizations outside of it.
[This new footnote to be incorporated into the guidelines of this section -- as Jared discussed in an email. "Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote)."]
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale from either within the identifed community or from relevant organizations outside of it.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale from either within the identified community or from relevant organizations outside of it.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** [Justine's deletion]
Prior version of the table posted by Justine on 8/30:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
On 9/2/2025 2:21 PM, Jared Erwin wrote:
Thanks, all. Appreciate the collaboration and detailed emails on this. I think my reference to a footnote/notes may have indeed been confusing. But, based on this chain, I think we are all converging.
/Kathy—could you kindly repost the table based on all the input/changes/agreements? I think that would indeed be helpful. /
FWIW, agree about adding the guideline, though would like to note that I think it is generally already all there, but we can try to clarify further/add what may be missing.
Best
Jared
*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 11:18 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by EOD Today August 29
That is the table with the CAPS and Justine's edit to column 4; keeping the double relevant, with the new footnote moved to the Guidelines -- because it is only one example of relevant -- and not the one that many public comments we received were trying to address.
Happy to repost the table if it would help.
Best, Kathy
On 9/2/2025 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Then I think we are all in agreement!
On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Agree with Justine's assessment.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy
On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy,
I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *_<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
/----------------------/
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). /Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? /
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
/(Replacing Jared's new note: <</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)>>
*/To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? /*
/----------------------/
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[/Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*_Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant_*
With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "/..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable/". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} _as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable_ {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations _outside_ the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: *Jared Erwin* <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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.(taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*_Part B. Existence of opposition_*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
*_Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question_* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *_by EOD today (23:59 UTC)_*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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 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 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.
Thanks very much, Kathy. Very helpful. All— Based on this exchange and the table below, I have finalized the edits in this section of the CPE language. • Please see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rH19XrXglbfYj-TyioFsj4siNECKeR5J7Gfdvk3_.... The language can be found in redlines as well as a couple of footnotes/guidelines that I’ve highlighted. Again, appreciate all the work on this. At this time, as the various comments/discussion points have been addressed and assuming no major red flags, I’d like to consider the CPE section closed for further editing. Thank you very much, Jared From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 17:49 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by EOD Today August 29 Hi Jared and All, As requested, I share the results of our collaboration and detailed emails -- hopefully capturing the bouncing ball where it landed. I share two tables to show the progression -- Justine's table in her email 8/30 (below) and the current table (above) keeping Justine's deletion in Column 4, the double "relevants" and noting Jared's offer to relocate his new footnote. Overall, I tried to include the inputs/changes/agreements as Jared asked. Best, Kathy Table 9/2 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 opposition form either within the identified community or from relevant organizations outside of it. [This new footnote to be incorporated into the guidelines of this section -- as Jared discussed in an email. "Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote)."] The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale from either within the identifed community or from relevant organizations outside of it. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale from either within the identified community or from relevant organizations outside of it. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** [Justine's deletion] Prior version of the table posted by Justine on 8/30: 4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition 3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition 2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition 0 - Applicant does not have majority support The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** On 9/2/2025 2:21 PM, Jared Erwin wrote: Thanks, all. Appreciate the collaboration and detailed emails on this. I think my reference to a footnote/notes may have indeed been confusing. But, based on this chain, I think we are all converging. Kathy—could you kindly repost the table based on all the input/changes/agreements? I think that would indeed be helpful. FWIW, agree about adding the guideline, though would like to note that I think it is generally already all there, but we can try to clarify further/add what may be missing. Best Jared From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 11:18 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 EOD Today August 29 That is the table with the CAPS and Justine's edit to column 4; keeping the double relevant, with the new footnote moved to the Guidelines -- because it is only one example of relevant -- and not the one that many public comments we received were trying to address. Happy to repost the table if it would help. Best, Kathy On 9/2/2025 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote: Then I think we are all in agreement! On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote: Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: Kathy, I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Anne, The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that. I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant. Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote: Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy: The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community. Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Justine, Jared, All, I think we are converging, and I think we have converged. Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see: (1) Table: Justine wrote: <<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. >> [bold added] [Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.] Justine also wrote: <<Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. >> [Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.] ---------------------- (2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email: <<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>> (Replacing Jared's new note: <<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)>> To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? ---------------------- (3) Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense. Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations." --------- (4) Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4) Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be: 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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. [Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT. The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend, Kathy On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear Jared, all, Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message. More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a question in conclusion in part C below. I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out. Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis. I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations outside the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point. [cid:image001.png@01DC1CC2.1D7F7E00] After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> 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>> 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 ---- At this point it's important to understand what you intended by "(footnote)", and I gather that to be: 41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email) Which is where I come to Part B. Part B. Existence of opposition On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below: [cid:image002.png@01DC1CC2.1D7F7E00] Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted? 4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition 3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition 2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition 0 - Applicant does not have majority support The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online. So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings: "4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement "Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time] "Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote] "An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:" ==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now. On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote: 4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition 3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition 2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition 0 - Applicant does not have majority support The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community. The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.* Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote). The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.** The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community. However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*** The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.**** NOTES: * Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both. ** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating. *** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here. **** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense. Best regards, Kathy -------------------- (Moved from above) Dear IRT members, I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided by EOD today (23:59 UTC). ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing. FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now. ------------------- Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com><mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 To: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com><mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org><mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August Thank you Juan and all, I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
I don't think all caps in the table makes sense. I thought you were just using those for emphasis. There is no reason to capitalized that language. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 11:18 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
That is the table with the CAPS and Justine's edit to column 4; keeping the double relevant, with the new footnote moved to the Guidelines -- because it is only one example of relevant -- and not the one that many public comments we received were trying to address.
Happy to repost the table if it would help.
Best, Kathy On 9/2/2025 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Then I think we are all in agreement! On 9/2/2025 1:55 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Agree with Justine's assessment. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:55 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
I believe the placement of "relevant" before "opposition" is equally important as placement of "relevant" before "organizations" and am not opposed to the use of "relevant" twice in the same sentence. Otherwise I would support Anne's position since the intention for the rest of the sentence is provided for in the guidelines.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 08:45, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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 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.
The heading on the first category in IRT deliberations refers to RELEVANT opposition. 35.4 says more than one entity can property represent a community. Not sure why you insist on deleting relevant when that is the standard that applies to the nature of the opposition? Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:45 PM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Anne,
The call from the many public comments was to more clearly identify and hear/read the relevant opposition in the Community Endorsement section. We did that well, and I think Justine, Cheryl and others agree. We were working out the wording to the fourth column, and we have agreed with Justine on that.
I think we're good with a set of clarifications that will help the public, the panel and the applicant.
Best, Kathy On 9/1/2025 4:07 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Kathy, I haven't made it all the way through your suggestions but this one is clearly contrary to policy:
The applicant does not have any relevant opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The standard is Majority support within the community - this does not mean that the applicant does not have "any" opposition from within the identified community.
Sorry I was unavailable prior to today but the above is inaccurate. The standard clearly agreed for the first column is majority support from within the community.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 8:22 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine, Jared, All,
I think we are converging, and I think we have converged.
Many thanks to Justine for her email yesterday and detailed discussion and revisions below. We think we understand, and think the pieces of the puzzle now fall together. Let me share what we see:
*(1) Table:*
Justine wrote: *<<Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, *then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above. *>> [bold added]
[Kathy: Many thanks to Justine and NCSG agrees that the table below (and largely as edited in the Module online) reflects the robust discussion and edits of last week including ours, Justine's, Anne's and other's and addresses the many concerns raised in public comments with fairness and balance.]
Justine also wrote: <<*Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway. *>>
[Kathy: Justine, we recognize your concerns and understand this edit and your reasoning for the "0 point" column of Community Endorsement. In the context of the agreed-on text of Columns 1 to 3, your deletion makes sense and reflects the fairness and balance of the table and its text.]
*----------------------*
(2) Now to footnote #41, Justine's rewrite than seems clearer than the version Jared proposed in his email (sorry Jared!), but the placement is odd. First, it was a footnote to the explanatory text before the table, and now it is in the table (which we find very confusing). *Why not elevate it to Guidelines for the scoring or opposition, right after the existing "d"? *
From Justine's email: revising both Footnote 41 in the Module and the "Note" in Column 1 of Jared's email:
<<41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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>>
*(Replacing Jared's new note: <<*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)>>
*To Justine's question, we ask a follow-up: Can we place this special and important case/note directly into the Guidelines? *
*----------------------*
(3) *Putting the "relevant" back to organizations, as Anne wanted it. *
Quick review: NCSG and NPOC offered "relevant" in one place, and Anne moved it to "relevant organizations." In the scheme of things, it made good sense.
Now, as we return to the new and added text last week, it is popping up in two places and that is confusing to us. We offer the small change to the table to return the word to the place Anne put it -- in "relevant organizations."
*---------*
(4) *Agreed on Table 4-9 in Community Endorsement (4.4.7.4)*
Thus, we think the current table, as agreed, with everyone's edits (and largely consistent with the online Module in redline) would be:
*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 opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
[*Per above, and Justine's question, recommend moving this note to "Guidelines for scoring of support or 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 FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Best and wishing everyone a good rest of your weekend,
Kathy
On 8/30/2025 12:17 AM, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear Jared, all,
Please accept my apologies for getting this message in late (it is Saturday morning where I am, after all) and the lengthiness of this message.
More importantly, allow me to unpack this issue of scoring for Criterion 4 - Community Endorsement into 2 parts A and B, and pose a *question in conclusion in part C below*.
I would like to think that those of us who have been actively discussing this issue, are essentially saying the same thing, just that we are speaking over each other and perhaps that is why we appear confusing. And for that, I thank you, Jared, for your patience in hearing us out.
*Part A. Support to be demonstrated by applicant* With reference to the previously circulated text captured in the scoring table for Criterion 4 (see screenshot below), I questioned the reference that suggested that it was for the applicant to demonstrate support "*..... from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable*". And the reason, as I had attempted to explain before, is "as applicable" isn't clear enough to suggest that this MAY BE needed on a case-by-case basis.
I think anyone, let alone an applicant, reading the first sentence of "The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community {Ed: part 1} *as well as from the relevant organizations outside the identified community as applicable* {Ed. part 2}" would immediately conclude from {part 2} that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate it has the support of relevant organizations *outside* the identified community in addition to {part 1} demonstrating that it has the support from a majority of their identified community. And I said that it should not be the applicant's burden to demonstrate support from anyone outside the identified community; conversely, that a lack of support would manifest itself in the form of application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition (if any). I believe that Anne, Cheryl, Chris, and Susan Anthony are with me on this point.
[image: image.png]
After which you amended the text (set out below) following your explanation that the edits were intended to address Elaine's 'coin' scenario, which I then acknowledged your insertion of the 'Note' as a better way of addressing that scenario.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 00:28 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>
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
----
At this point it's important to understand what you intended by " (footnote)", and I gather that to be:
41 See guidelines below for determining whether outside support is needed. 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. (taken from the screenshot set out first in this email)
Which is where I come to Part B.
*Part B. Existence of opposition*
On an prior IRT call, I alluded to "the missing piece" in the CPE language, generally, of a reference to any application comments of an opposing nature and letters of opposition that the panelists should take into account in their evaluation/scoring (provided, of course, that they were not frivolous, etc, which the language of "review and verify" takes care of IMO). On this point, my intention was targeted at the guideline text for each criterion which appear to imply that panelists should only consider anything submitted by the applicant (or what Kathy refers to as "the four corners of the application"). I think you have addressed this; by way of an example in the screenshot below:
[image: image.png]
*Part C. Conclusion and One Final Question* And to conclude (thanks for reading all the way to here!), to address Kathy's last edits, since she (and Juan Manuel, I assume) does not think that the phrase "relevant (footnote)" is prominent enough, then I am happy to consider the edits (marked in CAPS) to the first to third columns as friendly, since these appear to be consistent with points c and d in the guidelines above.
Edits to the last column, however, is neither appropriate - because we are talking about support (again, not the applicant's burden to demonstrate) - nor necessary since an applicant that cannot demonstrate majority support from its identified community is bound to fail this criterion anyway.
*The question now is, given Kathy's proposed edits, what would become of the Note you inserted?*
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 at 08:05, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
I'm sorry, Jared, but I think the changes below simplify the language too much. Because the goal here is to weigh both what the community thinks of itself and what relevant outside communities/organization think of it, we need to be very clear about weighing and considering both, as relevant. I think we do that in the existing language that we find in 4-9, in the version still posted online.
So harkening back to that version (and using caps to show the additions clearly), I share further background so we have all the context and introductory sections and then reinsert the language we have been evaluating in prior meetings:
"4.4.7.4 Criterion 4: Community Endorsement
"Criterion 4 is used to evaluate community support and/or opposition to the application. The panel will seek to answer the following core question when evaluating the application against this criterion: [note this sentence has been here for a long time]
"Support and Opposition: Does the applicant have support from a majority of the identified community and support from relevant organizations [footnote to define] outside the identified community, as applicable [another footnote]? Does the applicant have any opposition, from either within the identified community or form relevant organizations outside of it? [another footnote]
"An application can receive up to four points. See the scoring guide below:"
==> to that end, Jared, the table below is too simplified and unfortunately some key pieces are missing now.
On 8/29/2025 12:12 PM, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT wrote:
*4 - Applicant has majority support and does not have relevant opposition*
*3 - Applicant has majority support and has relevant minority opposition *
*2 - Applicant has majority support but also has relevant significant opposition*
*0 - Applicant does not have majority support*
The applicant has demonstrated support with clear rationale from a majority of the identified community.
The applicant does not have any relevant (footnote) opposition FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.*
Note: Where the applied-for string carries broader meanings or implications beyond the identified community, the panel may also consider whether there is support, or the absence of opposition, from relevant organizations outside of the identified community (footnote).
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant has relevant minority opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.**
The applicant has demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community.
However, the applicant also has relevant significant opposition with clear rationale FROM EITHER WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY OR FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF IT.***
The applicant has not demonstrated majority support with clear rationale from the identified community, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY, AS APPLICABLE.****
NOTES:
* Somehow the edits left out whose opposition we are looking for - and I'm sorry, but I don't understand why we would bury the relevant wording in a footnote. Further, this footnote seems to address concerns raised by some commenters earlier in the IRT discussion, but the goal here was also to reflect the many concerns we heard from the *public comment* about the need to incorporate the full weight of SubPro Recommendations to hear from outside organizations as well. Our version still posted online includes both.
** Ditto to above, whose opposition do we care about? We care about both the identified community and relevant organizations outside the identified community, and given even our own confusion, we should be clear about the two sets of voices we are evaluating.
*** As above, the clarity of both sets of organizations (identified community and relevant organizations outside) is what the public comments were seeking and what was written clearly in this section in the version online. I copy it over to here.
**** How can we remove the balance here. Noting that in all of the above, I have included Anne's changes for "relevant organizations outside the identified community" because it makes sense.
Best regards,
Kathy
--------------------
(Moved from above)
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
-------------------
Thank you
Jared
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> <jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email 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.
Jared, I think your simplified version with your appropriate footnotes is the most accurate and leaves the proper determination to the expert evaluator. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:12 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:
Dear IRT members,
I appreciate the input and conversation on this. I would kindly request that any further feedback on this language below be provided *by EOD today (23:59 UTC)*. ICANN will circulate an updated/final draft by EOD Tuesday with any redlines based on this exchange incorporated. After that time, I would like to consider the CPE section complete/closed for further editing.
FWIW, and as stated in my prior email, I believe that this version of the scoring table both simplifies the language and preserves the guideline re: outside support/opposition, which, to reiterate, was a concept that has already been in the language since January and continues to be in the language now.
Thank you,
Jared
*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: *Friday, August 29, 2025 at 06:30 *To: *Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> *Cc: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Jared Erwin < jared.erwin@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Updated CPE Language for review by 27 August
Thank you Juan and all,
I believe that Jared's last draft of the chart as sent to the list is accurate.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify my position: I intended, and thought I had written, that I support Anne’s comments regarding the need for opposition to come from relevant organizations, but I do not share Justine’s broader objection to including any reference to external support or opposition.
I also understood Jared’s note to be reflecting this same distinction, essentially aligning with Anne’s approach rather than removing these references entirely
Best
Juan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 15:37, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT
<subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Jared Erwin -
Justine Chew -
Kathy Kleiman