<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=Windows-1252">
<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:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi Dennis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Would it be possible for you to expand on how you think the ICANN Board’s response is relevant to our conversation around 3.5.4 and 3.6 please?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Donna<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, 15 September 2023 at 5:42 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: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Dennis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" 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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Ariel,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Dennis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" 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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></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"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear all, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Thank you!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Ariel <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Final Recommendation 3.5:</span></u></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">
</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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 </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">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.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Implementation Guidance 3.6</span></u></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">:
</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;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.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>