<html 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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I found the ICANN Board’s response to SubPro’s Recommendations 24.3, 24.5 regarding singular/plural applications relevant to this conversation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The scorecard can be located in this link <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en.pdf">
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dennis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:36 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"ariel.liang@icann.org" <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Ariel,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios
that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dennis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="1185" style="width:888.75pt;background:#F5ECCE">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="1175" style="width:881.25pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993300">Caution:</span></strong><span style="color:#993300"> </span><span style="color:black">This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">The leadership team has developed revised language for <u>Final Recommendation 3.5</u> and
<u>Implementation Guidance 3.6</u> for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ariel <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><b><i><u><span style="color:black">Final Recommendation 3.5:</span></u><span style="color:black">
</span></i></b><i><span style="color:black">In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for
primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant
label: </span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<i><span style="color:black">3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; </span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<i><span style="color:black">3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; </span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<i><span style="color:black">3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<i>3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><u><span style="color:black">Implementation Guidance 3.6</span></u><span style="color:black">:
</span></i></b><i><span style="color:black">A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other
words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in
<u>Final Recommendation 3.5</u>. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not
obliged to take the clarifying information into account. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black">Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 point<s>s</s> only).
Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that
an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black">The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>