Thanks Ariel. Where in that paragraph do we say "Community Registration Policies which the applicant wishes to be considered in Community Priority Evaluation must first be approved by ICANN in accordance with the Registry Commitment Evaluation (RCE) procedure. The string will not be eligible for the CPE process until such policies pass RCE." I don't think the average reader actually equates "Community Registration Policies" with RVCs that will be the subject of RCE. RVC and RCE are not mentioned even once in this section. The above needs to be set out clearly in this Section on page 21. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:11 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Anne! I made some suggested redline update in Section 4 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYRH2e8pSjWa49k9nWcytM963JSTMA...> (p.21), incorporating your input. I hope this helps clarify?

Best Regards,

Ariel

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 5:37 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies

Thanks Ariel. I still think we need to state clearly on page 21 re Community Registration Policies that a Community applicant must have approval of its RVCs (or an approved Change Request to drop the RVC that is not approved) before an application can proceed to CPE.

Thank you,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 7:55 AM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Dear IRT Members,

Please find here the updated Topic 9 AGB text in preparation for our call on 8 May.

- Clean version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYRH2e8pSjWa49k9nWcytM963JSTMA... - heading=h.ri1736pcfxf1 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYR...> - Redline version (compared to the version published for Public Comment – see v05_2025-05-08): https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... - :~:text=Proposed AGB Language_v05_2025-05-08 %5BRedlines%5D.pdf [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>

Please note that the updates reflect input received from public comments, which we discussed during the 16 April [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> meeting. In addition, there are substantive updates for footnote 11 (pp.10-11), Section 3.2.4 (pp.15), footnote 13 (p.16), and first paragraph of Section 4 and footnote 19 (p.21). These updates intend to address input from the IRT during our 16 April meeting.

Look forward to our discussion next week!

Best Regards,

Ariel

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thank you Ariel. The new change is helpful. However, if we think that policies outside the RA will not be counted in the scoring for CPE, then we should say so more plainly. It's not clear to me that the full IRT agrees that policies outside the RA don't qualify for CPE scoring but if that is the case, we should add one more short and very clear disclosure as highlighted below. In addition, Community-based gTLD registry operators may implement any additional Community Registration Policies outside of the RA which are desired, so long as the policies otherwise comply with the applicable ICANN agreements and policies. 19 However, policies outside the RA will not be considered in any applicable CPE scoring. Perhaps Jared can clarify the question on CPE scoring of policies which will not be included in the RA. I am copying Jeff since I believe he raised this scoring issue in our CPE discussions. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 8:00 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

Hello Anne,

Thanks for your input.

Regarding the point that Community Registration Policies proposed for inclusion in the RA are subject to RCE – this is mentioned in multiple places throughout Topic 9, including Section 4. This is also one of the reasons why we group RVCs and Community Registration Policies together under Topic 9.

For the ease of reference, please see the page/section numbers and quotes where this point has been made:

1. p.3, Introduction, 2nd paragraph: “….ICANN will evaluate any *Community Registration Policies*…proposed by the applicant for inclusion in the applicable RA by applying the *RCE criteria* set forth in Section 3.3 below”; 2. p.11, Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph: “Please note that each *Community Registration Policy* proposed for inclusion in the applicable RA will also be *subject to the RCE*…”; 3. p.15, Section 3.2.4, 1st paragraph: “With respect to the timing of *Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE)* of…proposed *Community Registration Policies* submitted by Community-based TLD applicants...”; 4. p.15, Section 3.2.4, 4th paragraph: “ICANN will publish and regularly update the *RCE results* of all submitted…*Community Registration Policies* on [this page]...” 5. p.16, Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph: “…each commitment in the *Community Registration Policy* that is proposed for inclusion in the applicable RA…must also meet all of the *Registry Commitments Evaluation* criteria in order to be approved.” 6. p.21, Section 4, 2nd paragraph: “*Community Registration Policy* proposed by an applicant for inclusion in the applicable RA must be evaluated pursuant to the *Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE)* criteria in Section 3.3 above.”

That’s a fair point that a reader who only focuses on Section 4 on p.21 may not make the mental connection between Community Registration Policy and Registry Voluntary Commitments. As such, I suggested a redline edit by including the phrase “*Same as proposed Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) for inclusion in the RA*” at the beginning of the second paragraph, and also made an additional redline edit by inserting “…subject to the Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE)” at the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph.

That being said, RVCs and Comm Reg Policies are not exactly equal, as the latter is a required element for an application to qualify as a Community-based TLD application, while the former is optional (with the exception to the ones pursuant to Section 3.2.3.1).

I hope this helps address your concern.

Best Regards,

Ariel

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 4:23 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies

Thanks Ariel. Where in that paragraph do we say "Community Registration Policies which the applicant wishes to be considered in Community Priority Evaluation must first be approved by ICANN in accordance with the Registry Commitment Evaluation (RCE) procedure. The string will not be eligible for the CPE process until such policies pass RCE."

I don't think the average reader actually equates "Community Registration Policies" with RVCs that will be the subject of RCE. RVC and RCE are not mentioned even once in this section. The above needs to be set out clearly in this Section on page 21.

Thank you,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:11 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Anne! I made some suggested redline update in Section 4 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYR...> (p.21), incorporating your input. I hope this helps clarify?

Best Regards,

Ariel

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 5:37 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies

Thanks Ariel. I still think we need to state clearly on page 21 re Community Registration Policies that a Community applicant must have approval of its RVCs (or an approved Change Request to drop the RVC that is not approved) before an application can proceed to CPE.

Thank you,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 7:55 AM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Dear IRT Members,

Please find here the updated Topic 9 AGB text in preparation for our call on 8 May.

- Clean version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYRH2e8pSjWa49k9nWcytM963JSTMA... - heading=h.ri1736pcfxf1 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYR...> - Redline version (compared to the version published for Public Comment – see v05_2025-05-08): https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... - :~:text=Proposed AGB Language_v05_2025-05-08 %5BRedlines%5D.pdf [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...>

Please note that the updates reflect input received from public comments, which we discussed during the 16 April [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> meeting. In addition, there are substantive updates for footnote 11 (pp.10-11), Section 3.2.4 (pp.15), footnote 13 (p.16), and first paragraph of Section 4 and footnote 19 (p.21). These updates intend to address input from the IRT during our 16 April meeting.

Look forward to our discussion next week!

Best Regards,

Ariel

_______________________________________________ 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.

It’s a little bit more than that. Policies that are outside the jurisdiction of the RA will not be counted either positively or negatively towards the scoring of CPE. The distinction is important because I could easily imaging opponents of a community app complaining about something they believe should be in the registration policies but were not included by the applicant. In other words we should not be considering any opposition to an applicant if that opposition is based on content grounds. This is because an applicant may or may not have included those policies because its outside’s jurisdiction. Hope that makes sense. For example, take the amateur sports example we discussed a while ago. If I am the applicant, I will NOT include an anti-doping content restriction in my application because it is not for ICANN to evaluate and will not get me any points. By the same token an opponent who faults me for not including that in my policies/application must not be allowed to negatively impact my application either or even count as “opposing my applocation.” Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 12:29:35 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Dear Anne, The CPE Criterion 3 (Registration Policies) only looks at eligibility and naming selection, so by nature anything besides those will not be scored/evaluated as part of CPE. But to make it abundantly clear in the text, we could add something in line with your suggestion. I’ll work with Ariel on that. Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 08:59 To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thank you Ariel. The new change is helpful. However, if we think that policies outside the RA will not be counted in the scoring for CPE, then we should say so more plainly. It's not clear to me that the full IRT agrees that policies outside the RA don't qualify for CPE scoring but if that is the case, we should add one more short and very clear disclosure as highlighted below. In addition, Community-based gTLD registry operators may implement any additional Community Registration Policies outside of the RA which are desired, so long as the policies otherwise comply with the applicable ICANN agreements and policies. 19 However, policies outside the RA will not be considered in any applicable CPE scoring. Perhaps Jared can clarify the question on CPE scoring of policies which will not be included in the RA. I am copying Jeff since I believe he raised this scoring issue in our CPE discussions. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 8:00 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Anne, Thanks for your input. Regarding the point that Community Registration Policies proposed for inclusion in the RA are subject to RCE – this is mentioned in multiple places throughout Topic 9, including Section 4. This is also one of the reasons why we group RVCs and Community Registration Policies together under Topic 9. For the ease of reference, please see the page/section numbers and quotes where this point has been made: 1. p.3, Introduction, 2nd paragraph: “….ICANN will evaluate any Community Registration Policies…proposed by the applicant for inclusion in the applicable RA by applying the RCE criteria set forth in Section 3.3 below”; 2. p.11, Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph: “Please note that each Community Registration Policy proposed for inclusion in the applicable RA will also be subject to the RCE…”; 3. p.15, Section 3.2.4, 1st paragraph: “With respect to the timing of Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE) of…proposed Community Registration Policies submitted by Community-based TLD applicants...”; 4. p.15, Section 3.2.4, 4th paragraph: “ICANN will publish and regularly update the RCE results of all submitted…Community Registration Policies on [this page]...” 5. p.16, Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph: “…each commitment in the Community Registration Policy that is proposed for inclusion in the applicable RA…must also meet all of the Registry Commitments Evaluation criteria in order to be approved.” 6. p.21, Section 4, 2nd paragraph: “Community Registration Policy proposed by an applicant for inclusion in the applicable RA must be evaluated pursuant to the Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE) criteria in Section 3.3 above.” That’s a fair point that a reader who only focuses on Section 4 on p.21 may not make the mental connection between Community Registration Policy and Registry Voluntary Commitments. As such, I suggested a redline edit by including the phrase “Same as proposed Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) for inclusion in the RA” at the beginning of the second paragraph, and also made an additional redline edit by inserting “…subject to the Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE)” at the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph. That being said, RVCs and Comm Reg Policies are not exactly equal, as the latter is a required element for an application to qualify as a Community-based TLD application, while the former is optional (with the exception to the ones pursuant to Section 3.2.3.1). I hope this helps address your concern. Best Regards, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 4:23 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. Where in that paragraph do we say "Community Registration Policies which the applicant wishes to be considered in Community Priority Evaluation must first be approved by ICANN in accordance with the Registry Commitment Evaluation (RCE) procedure. The string will not be eligible for the CPE process until such policies pass RCE." I don't think the average reader actually equates "Community Registration Policies" with RVCs that will be the subject of RCE. RVC and RCE are not mentioned even once in this section. The above needs to be set out clearly in this Section on page 21. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:11 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Anne! I made some suggested redline update in Section 4 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYR...> (p.21), incorporating your input. I hope this helps clarify? Best Regards, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Updated Topic 9 AGB Text: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. I still think we need to state clearly on page 21 re Community Registration Policies that a Community applicant must have approval of its RVCs (or an approved Change Request to drop the RVC that is not approved) before an application can proceed to CPE. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 7:55 AM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT Members, Please find here the updated Topic 9 AGB text in preparation for our call on 8 May. * Clean version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYRH2e8pSjWa49k9nWcytM963JSTMA... - heading=h.ri1736pcfxf1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1v150Usag-3uYR...> * Redline version (compared to the version published for Public Comment – see v05_2025-05-08): https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200175/1.+Wo... - :~:text=Proposed AGB Language_v05_2025-05-08 %5BRedlines%5D.pdf [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> Please note that the updates reflect input received from public comments, which we discussed during the 16 April [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> meeting. In addition, there are substantive updates for footnote 11 (pp.10-11), Section 3.2.4 (pp.15), footnote 13 (p.16), and first paragraph of Section 4 and footnote 19 (p.21). These updates intend to address input from the IRT during our 16 April meeting. Look forward to our discussion next week! Best Regards, Ariel _______________________________________________ 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.