<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you, Paul T<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is on the agenda for tomorrow’s call as item 3 –<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will be chairing. As I believe we have already closed out Sunrise 3 and 4 other than this additional proposed implementation guidance language, we will proceed directly to it following completion of agenda item 2.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please be prepared to explain the proposal and why it would be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance. I look forward to the discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best, Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 16, 2020 6:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear RPM WG members, <br>
<br>
Please find below s</span>uggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4 (Item 3 on our proposed draft agenda)<br>
<span style="color:black"><br>
</span><span style="color:navy">The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group
regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following:<br>
<br>
1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period
not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period.<br>
<br>
2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.</span><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
Best regards, Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>