<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">All,<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><o:p class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> </font></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, <b class="">14 November 2017 @ 20:00 UTC</b>, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will continue and build on our discussion from ICANN #60 on the topic of Community Applications. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you.<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><o:p class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> </font></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Best,<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Robin</font></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><u class="">Discussion Agenda </u><o:p class=""></o:p></font></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><o:p class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> </font></o:p></div><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">1. Welcome & Review of Agenda<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">2. Updates to SOI<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">3. Plenary Update<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">5. Proposed Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018<o:p class=""></o:p></font></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">6. Continued Discussion of “Community” Applications (details below)</font></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> A. Categories of Communities?</font></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities” Section 3.3</font></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">7. AOB</font></div></div></div></div></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">-----</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><b class=""><u class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Detailed Substantive Discussion Agenda</font></u></b></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class="">6. Follow-up on Discussion at ICANN #60 on “Communities"</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> A. Categories of Communities?</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Where to set boundaries and which privileges to grant to different categories of communities?</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> (see attached transcript from ICANN#60 with GAC)</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities"</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> (see “Themes" document at: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0/edit?usp=sharing" class="">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0/edit?usp=sharing</a> )</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><b class=""> </b>Section 3.3 - Community Applications and Community Priority Applications (CPE)</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> Treatment of GAC Advice</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> CPE - Transparency and Appeals Mechanisms</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3.3.1 - As indicated in the Implementation Guidance of the 2007 Final Report, the claim by an applicant to support a community was intended to be taken on trust unless the applied-for TLD is in contention with one or more TLDs or is the respondent in an objection. As a result, the claim to support a community was only evaluated in Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) and Community Objections. Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation?</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues?
</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3.3.3 - CPE was the one instance in the New gTLD Program where there was an element of a comparative evaluation and as such, there were inherently winners and losers created. Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? The GNSO policy recommendations left the issue of a method for resolving contention for community claimed names to Board and the implementation. Do you believe that a priority evaluation is the right way to handle name contention with community applicants? Should different options be explored? If so which options should be explored and why?</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples.
</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3.3.5 - Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications?</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""></font></div></body></html>