Dear Justine and IRT Members, Thank you for the discussion on Thursday and for highlighting these various considerations. Some follow-up responses/thoughts below: Guidelines As a reminder, this is the relevant SubPro recommendation: Recommendation 34.16: All Community Priority Evaluation procedures (including any supplemental dispute provider rules) must be developed and published before the opening of the application submission period [emphasis added] and must be readily and publicly available. We understand the importance of ensuring that an applicant has all the relevant information, and we discussed reviewing the CPE guidelines alongside the draft criteria, as these things go together. We can commit to reviewing the guidelines and noting potential required changes to these based on any updates to the criteria. It should be noted that, as per the recs and IG, we do plan to make updates to the criteria based on the guidelines, so in some cases a review of the guidelines will be inherent to/covered by the review of the criteria. Community Commitment Review vs. CPE As Justine notes, some IRT members understood from the recent Board adoption of a framework<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registry-commitments-implementat...> for RVCs that CPE is now required for all community applicants regardless of contention status. For your reference, the language in question from the framework is as follows: D. Community gTLD Commitments a. Applicants who elect to designate themselves as a “community” applicant must propose community-specific commitments in their applications for the proposed string, including possible restrictions on use and content, as in the 2012 round. i. Unlike in the 2012 round, these community-specific commitments will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant proceeds to community priority evaluation as a result of string contention [emphasis added]. ii. These commitments would be subject to the same evaluation framework as the Registry Voluntary Commitments set out in Section B above. b. The community-specific commitments will be evaluated and must be agreed between the applicant and ICANN before any Community Priority Evaluation occurs. c. If the proposed community gTLD commitment does not pass the evaluation, it would not be counted for scoring as part of the Community Priority Evaluation [emphasis added] and could not be included in the Registry Agreement if the application proceeds to delegation. d. If the commitment passes the evaluation, as-is or with modifications agreed between the applicant and ICANN during the evaluation process, the commitment will be included in Specification 12 of the relevant Registry Agreement. e. Any future additions or modifications to the community gTLD commitments included in the Registry Agreement must be implemented via an amendment to the applicable Registry Agreement, per the Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests Based on this language, and as Justine alludes to, while a community commitment review is required for all community applicants, this has no bearing on CPE, as this is an optional, contention resolution mechanism. The commitment review and CPE are separate evaluations. In addition, please see Affirmation 34.1, which states: Affirmation with Modification 34.1: The Working Group affirms the continued prioritization of applications in contention sets that have passed Community Priority Evaluation (CPE). The Working Group further affirms Implementation Guideline H* from the 2007 policy, with one small modification: “Where an applicant lays any claim that the TLD is intended to support a particular community such as a sponsored TLD, or any other TLD intended for a specified community, that claim will be taken on trust with the following exceptions: (i) the claim relates to a string that is also subject to another application and the claim to support a community is being used to gain priority for the application; [emphasis added] and (ii) a formal objection process is initiated. Under exception (ii), an expert panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions set forth in IG P.” This modified text removes the following sentence under (ii) in order to be consistent with 2012 implementation: “Under these exceptions, Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and procedures to investigate the claim.” Considering this, I reiterate the point that CPE is NOT required for all community applicants. I also agree with Justine’s comments regarding the fact that community applicants will likely need to understand their commitments at the time of application and that this should be reflected in the application questions. I will pass these comments along to the relevant team members. Thank you again for the discussion. Please let us know of any further questions or comments. Thank you, Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org> From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] SubPro IRT Meeting #66 | 29 August 2024, 19:00-20:00 UTC Hello Jared, During this call, we discussed the need for the CPE Evaluation Guidelines to be made available ahead of the Next Round application window opening, even if it was by way of an annexure to the AGB (and not incorporated in the AGB). Several IRT members, including myself, made reference to the CPE criteria being applicable regardless of whether a Community-based TLD applicant is caught in a contention set and opts for CPE as the means to be prioritized ahead of other applications in that contention set (i.e. if it prevails in CPE). To be clear, I am correcting/clarifying my remark made in chat about the need for such guidelines to be made available "by" the opening of the Next Round application window to mean "well before" the opening of the Next Round application window. 1. As part of the Board's decision on the approach to handling RVCs that restrict and/or usage of gTLDs in the Next Round, it is understood that any community-specific commitments (RVCs) offered by a Community-based TLD applicant will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant opts for and proceeds to CPE to get out of a contention set - so you are correct in this respect. However, we cannot assume that RVCs will be offered subsequent to the submission of an application. The contrary is more likely - that Community-based TLD applicants must have an expectation that their RVCs form part of their application at the time of submission, for possible inclusion into their RA Specification 12 (should their application succeed). This should be evident through the gTLD application submission form questions for Community-based TLDs. 2. Since Community-based TLD applicants are expected to submit their applications in the prescribed application window (without any extra dispensation) they need to have a full understanding of how CPE will be conducted in order to be able to adequately address the requirements under CPE within their applications. In the 2012 round, the CPE Evaluation Guidelines came out after the application window had closed and applicants were not able to amend their applications. Thus, in addition to wanting the avoidance of this situation for the Next Round, we must offer applicants ample time to prepare their applications including RVCs; which is why the CPE Evaluation Guidelines (even if manifested as an annexure to the AGB) have to be published well before the application window opens, if not at the same time as the AGB. Thanks, Justine On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 22:25, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Meeting #66 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 29 August 2024 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/crywbbxm__;!!PtGJab4!6haD0Y0d...>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/ZwDyF>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0R...> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Anne, The discussion on this topic revolved around two key considerations: 1. The fact that in the 2012 round, the Guidelines were developed together with the CPE panel AFTER the round opened. 2. That the Guidelines should be (per Rec 34.16) available no later than opening of the round but ideally much earlier, hence the exchange on the call and the email below. ICANN is still considering at what point the CPE panel would be engaged. Because of the importance of the Guidelines (also per the SubPro recs), we plan to review the Guidelines together with the draft AGB section and potentially have a draft that could be turned over to the vendor at the time they are engaged. That draft could be available before the opening of the round. At the point the panel is engaged, the Guidelines could be amended/updated, as required. I hope this helps. Let me know of further questions. Thank you Jared From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 5:55 PM To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: SubPro IRT Meeting #66 | 29 August 2024, 19:00-20:00 UTC Thanks Jared. Could you please clarify what you are saying about the timing of the availability of CPE evaluation guidelines for prospective community applicants? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:59 PM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Justine and IRT Members, Thank you for the discussion on Thursday and for highlighting these various considerations. Some follow-up responses/thoughts below: Guidelines As a reminder, this is the relevant SubPro recommendation: Recommendation 34.16: All Community Priority Evaluation procedures (including any supplemental dispute provider rules) must be developed and published before the opening of the application submission period [emphasis added] and must be readily and publicly available. We understand the importance of ensuring that an applicant has all the relevant information, and we discussed reviewing the CPE guidelines alongside the draft criteria, as these things go together. We can commit to reviewing the guidelines and noting potential required changes to these based on any updates to the criteria. It should be noted that, as per the recs and IG, we do plan to make updates to the criteria based on the guidelines, so in some cases a review of the guidelines will be inherent to/covered by the review of the criteria. Community Commitment Review vs. CPE As Justine notes, some IRT members understood from the recent Board adoption of a framework<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registry-commitments-implementat...> for RVCs that CPE is now required for all community applicants regardless of contention status. For your reference, the language in question from the framework is as follows: D. Community gTLD Commitments a. Applicants who elect to designate themselves as a “community” applicant must propose community-specific commitments in their applications for the proposed string, including possible restrictions on use and content, as in the 2012 round. i. Unlike in the 2012 round, these community-specific commitments will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant proceeds to community priority evaluation as a result of string contention [emphasis added]. ii. These commitments would be subject to the same evaluation framework as the Registry Voluntary Commitments set out in Section B above. b. The community-specific commitments will be evaluated and must be agreed between the applicant and ICANN before any Community Priority Evaluation occurs. c. If the proposed community gTLD commitment does not pass the evaluation, it would not be counted for scoring as part of the Community Priority Evaluation [emphasis added] and could not be included in the Registry Agreement if the application proceeds to delegation. d. If the commitment passes the evaluation, as-is or with modifications agreed between the applicant and ICANN during the evaluation process, the commitment will be included in Specification 12 of the relevant Registry Agreement. e. Any future additions or modifications to the community gTLD commitments included in the Registry Agreement must be implemented via an amendment to the applicable Registry Agreement, per the Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests Based on this language, and as Justine alludes to, while a community commitment review is required for all community applicants, this has no bearing on CPE, as this is an optional, contention resolution mechanism. The commitment review and CPE are separate evaluations. In addition, please see Affirmation 34.1, which states: Affirmation with Modification 34.1: The Working Group affirms the continued prioritization of applications in contention sets that have passed Community Priority Evaluation (CPE). The Working Group further affirms Implementation Guideline H* from the 2007 policy, with one small modification: “Where an applicant lays any claim that the TLD is intended to support a particular community such as a sponsored TLD, or any other TLD intended for a specified community, that claim will be taken on trust with the following exceptions: (i) the claim relates to a string that is also subject to another application and the claim to support a community is being used to gain priority for the application; [emphasis added] and (ii) a formal objection process is initiated. Under exception (ii), an expert panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions set forth in IG P.” This modified text removes the following sentence under (ii) in order to be consistent with 2012 implementation: “Under these exceptions, Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and procedures to investigate the claim.” Considering this, I reiterate the point that CPE is NOT required for all community applicants. I also agree with Justine’s comments regarding the fact that community applicants will likely need to understand their commitments at the time of application and that this should be reflected in the application questions. I will pass these comments along to the relevant team members. Thank you again for the discussion. Please let us know of any further questions or comments. Thank you, Jared -- Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org> From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@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] SubPro IRT Meeting #66 | 29 August 2024, 19:00-20:00 UTC Hello Jared, During this call, we discussed the need for the CPE Evaluation Guidelines to be made available ahead of the Next Round application window opening, even if it was by way of an annexure to the AGB (and not incorporated in the AGB). Several IRT members, including myself, made reference to the CPE criteria being applicable regardless of whether a Community-based TLD applicant is caught in a contention set and opts for CPE as the means to be prioritized ahead of other applications in that contention set (i.e. if it prevails in CPE). To be clear, I am correcting/clarifying my remark made in chat about the need for such guidelines to be made available "by" the opening of the Next Round application window to mean "well before" the opening of the Next Round application window. 1. As part of the Board's decision on the approach to handling RVCs that restrict and/or usage of gTLDs in the Next Round, it is understood that any community-specific commitments (RVCs) offered by a Community-based TLD applicant will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant opts for and proceeds to CPE to get out of a contention set - so you are correct in this respect. However, we cannot assume that RVCs will be offered subsequent to the submission of an application. The contrary is more likely - that Community-based TLD applicants must have an expectation that their RVCs form part of their application at the time of submission, for possible inclusion into their RA Specification 12 (should their application succeed). This should be evident through the gTLD application submission form questions for Community-based TLDs. 2. Since Community-based TLD applicants are expected to submit their applications in the prescribed application window (without any extra dispensation) they need to have a full understanding of how CPE will be conducted in order to be able to adequately address the requirements under CPE within their applications. In the 2012 round, the CPE Evaluation Guidelines came out after the application window had closed and applicants were not able to amend their applications. Thus, in addition to wanting the avoidance of this situation for the Next Round, we must offer applicants ample time to prepare their applications including RVCs; which is why the CPE Evaluation Guidelines (even if manifested as an annexure to the AGB) have to be published well before the application window opens, if not at the same time as the AGB. Thanks, Justine On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 22:25, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Meeting #66 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 29 August 2024 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/crywbbxm__;!!PtGJab4!6haD0Y0d...>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/ZwDyF>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0R...> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Dear Jared, Many thanks for your comprehensive reply, which IMO sets out the generally correct thinking. I would like to pick up one point, which is:

*c. If the proposed community gTLD commitment does not pass the evaluation, it would not be counted for scoring as part of the Community Priority Evaluation [emphasis added] and could not be included in the Registry Agreement if the application proceeds to delegation*

The takeaway here is that community-based applicants need to understand that in crafting a proposed community gTLD commitment, they should bear in mind that such commitment potentially serves a second purpose of the optional CPE, the consequence of which is that the *same* proposed commitment *will* be evaluated by (one panel) for purposes of inclusion in the RA and *potentially* by a *second, different evaluation panel *for CPE. Thus, they need to understand that the same commitment may serve two different purposes and hence, evaluated differently, and thus, take care to craft their commitments accordingly. Kind regards, Justine On Wed, 4 Sept 2024 at 06:59, Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Justine and IRT Members,

Thank you for the discussion on Thursday and for highlighting these various considerations. Some follow-up responses/thoughts below:

*Guidelines*

As a reminder, this is the relevant SubPro recommendation:

*Recommendation 34.16**: All Community Priority Evaluation procedures (including any supplemental dispute provider rules) must be developed and published before the opening of the application submission period [emphasis added] and must be readily and publicly available.*

We understand the importance of ensuring that an applicant has all the relevant information, and we discussed reviewing the CPE guidelines alongside the draft criteria, as these things go together. We can commit to reviewing the guidelines and noting potential required changes to these based on any updates to the criteria. It should be noted that, as per the recs and IG, we do plan to make updates to the criteria based on the guidelines, so in some cases a review of the guidelines will be inherent to/covered by the review of the criteria.

*Community Commitment Review vs. CPE*

As Justine notes, some IRT members understood from the recent Board adoption of a framework <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registry-commitments-implementat...> for RVCs that CPE is now required for all community applicants regardless of contention status. For your reference, the language in question from the framework is as follows:

*D. Community gTLD Commitments *

*a. Applicants who elect to designate themselves as a “community” applicant must propose community-specific commitments in their applications for the proposed string, including possible restrictions on use and content, as in the 2012 round. *

*i. Unlike in the 2012 round, these community-specific commitments will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant proceeds to community priority evaluation as a result of string contention [emphasis added].*

*ii. These commitments would be subject to the same evaluation framework as the Registry Voluntary Commitments set out in Section B above.*

*b. The community-specific commitments will be evaluated and must be agreed between the applicant and ICANN before any Community Priority Evaluation occurs. *

*c. If the proposed community gTLD commitment does not pass the evaluation, it would not be counted for scoring as part of the Community Priority Evaluation [emphasis added] and could not be included in the Registry Agreement if the application proceeds to delegation. *

*d. If the commitment passes the evaluation, as-is or with modifications agreed between the applicant and ICANN during the evaluation process, the commitment will be included in Specification 12 of the relevant Registry Agreement. *

*e. Any future additions or modifications to the community gTLD commitments included in the Registry Agreement must be implemented via an amendment to the applicable Registry Agreement, per the Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests*

Based on this language, and as Justine alludes to, while a community commitment review is required for all community applicants, this has no bearing on CPE, as this is an optional, contention resolution mechanism. The commitment review and CPE are separate evaluations.

In addition, please see Affirmation 34.1, which states:

*Affirmation with Modification 34.1: The Working Group affirms the continued prioritization of applications in contention sets that have passed Community Priority Evaluation (CPE). The Working Group further affirms Implementation Guideline H* from the 2007 policy, with one small modification: “Where an applicant lays any claim that the TLD is intended to support a particular community such as a sponsored TLD, or any other TLD intended for a specified community, that claim will be taken on trust with the following exceptions: (i) the claim relates to a string that is also subject to another application and the claim to support a community is being used to gain priority for the application; [emphasis added] and (ii) a formal objection process is initiated. Under exception (ii), an expert panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions set forth in IG P.” This modified text removes the following sentence under (ii) in order to be consistent with 2012 implementation: “Under these exceptions, Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and procedures to investigate the claim.”*

Considering this, I reiterate the point that CPE is NOT required for all community applicants.

I also agree with Justine’s comments regarding the fact that community applicants will likely need to understand their commitments at the time of application and that this should be reflected in the application questions. I will pass these comments along to the relevant team members.

Thank you again for the discussion. Please let us know of any further questions or comments.

Thank you,

Jared

--

Jared Erwin

Director, New gTLD Program

Global Domains & Strategy

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

jared.erwin@icann.org

*From: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM *To: *Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] SubPro IRT Meeting #66 | 29 August 2024, 19:00-20:00 UTC

Hello Jared,

During this call, we discussed the need for the CPE Evaluation Guidelines to be made available ahead of the Next Round application window opening, even if it was by way of an annexure to the AGB (and not incorporated in the AGB). Several IRT members, including myself, made reference to the CPE criteria being applicable regardless of whether a Community-based TLD applicant is caught in a contention set and opts for CPE as the means to be prioritized ahead of other applications in that contention set (i.e. if it prevails in CPE).

To be clear, I am correcting/clarifying my remark made in chat about the need for such guidelines to be made available "*by*" the opening of the Next Round application window to mean "*well before*" the opening of the Next Round application window.

1. As part of the Board's decision on the approach to handling RVCs that restrict and/or usage of gTLDs in the Next Round, it is understood that any community-specific commitments (RVCs) offered by a Community-based TLD applicant will be evaluated regardless of whether or not the applicant opts for and proceeds to CPE to get out of a contention set - so you are correct in this respect.

However, we cannot assume that RVCs will be offered subsequent to the submission of an application. The contrary is more likely - that Community-based TLD applicants must have an expectation that their RVCs form part of their application at the time of submission, for possible inclusion into their RA Specification 12 (should their application succeed). This should be evident through the gTLD application submission form questions for Community-based TLDs.

2. Since Community-based TLD applicants are expected to submit their applications in the prescribed application window (without any extra dispensation) they need to have a full understanding of how CPE will be conducted in order to be able to adequately address the requirements under CPE within their applications.

In the 2012 round, the CPE Evaluation Guidelines came out after the application window had closed and applicants were not able to amend their applications. Thus, in addition to wanting the avoidance of this situation for the Next Round, we must offer applicants ample time to prepare their applications including RVCs; which is why the CPE Evaluation Guidelines (even if manifested as an annexure to the AGB) have to be published well before the application window opens, if not at the same time as the AGB.

Thanks, Justine

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 22:25, Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Meeting #*66* of the SubPro IRT will be held on *29 August 2024* at *1**9* *:00-**20:00* *UTC* [local time [tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/crywbbxm__;!!PtGJab4!6haD0Y0d...>]. The agenda can be consulted here <https://community.icann.org/x/ZwDyF>.

Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>.

We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name.

*Zoom information:*

*Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): *

https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0R...>

Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905

Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e

*Zoom Audio only**:*

One tap mobile

+13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston)

+16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose)

Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905

Passcode: 5806401747

Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Best regards,

Renate

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt

_______________________________________________ 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.