August 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, Here is the follow-up draft statement for your input - comments encouraged on the wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/1wGMAg> Urgent feedback requested. Rinalia DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION EVALUATOR AND GUIDELINES The ALAC notes that ICANN has appointed the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as the sole new gTLD Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) panel firm and that the firm has developed a set of guidelines for CPE, which is open for stakeholder feedback from 16 August - 9 September 2013 ( http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13… ). *Selection of Evaluator* We seek clarification on the following regarding the selection of the CPE panel firm: 1. Was there an open call for tender? 2. What were the selected channels for the call for tender? 3. Was the call for tender only made in the English language and targeted exclusively at the English-speaking world? 4. Were the criteria for selection published and have they changed since initial publication? 5. How many applications were considered and who made the selection decision? 6. What are the terms of the CPE service provision contract (i.e., remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligations to include certain segments of the Internet user community, etc.)? 7. Why was InterConnect Communications dropped from the CPE panel firm appointees? *Community Expertise * The ALAC has raised concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in the CPE panel firm via our statement to the ICANN Board dated 9 August 2013 (*AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN)*. We re-iterate our concern that the EIU may have a natural familiarity and pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications emphasizing community service. We wish to stress the importance of ensuring sufficient and relevant community-related expertise among the team of evaluators conducting the CPE evaluation. We request further clarification on the EIU and its evaluation team, criteria and principles: 1. How has the EIU demonstrated its competence in evaluating proposals related to public communities? 2. How diverse is the team of EIU evaluators and how well do they match the needs of the new gTLD applications opting for CPE? 3. On “EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications” – How would the evaluators treat applications that are global in scope and do not pertain to industries? (Example: the community of kids; the gay community). 4. On “All EIU evaluators must undergo training and be fully cognizant of all CPE requirements as listed in the Applicant Guidebook. This process will include a pilot testing process” - Who will conduct the training for the EIU evaluators? What is the level of understanding about communities among the trainers? How would understanding of what a community is be facilitated given that the Applicant Guidebook does not have a clear and agreed definition of “community”? How would the sufficiency of community expertise among the evaluators be ascertained and ensured? (Recommendation: The team of evaluators should have both a broad understanding of the Domain Name System as well as specific knowledge of the Domain Name System market in under-served communities). 5. A principle characterizing the EIU evaluation indicates that “All Applications will subsequently be reviewed by members of the core project team to verify accuracy and compliance with the AGB, and to ensure consistency of approach across all applications” – What is the recourse when these cannot be verified? *CPE Guidelines* (Awaiting community input – if any) *Additional Recommendations on the CPE* Note to the ALAC: The Community TLD Applicant Group (CTAG) is requesting for the following consideration in the CPE via a letter from the CTAG to the ICANN Vice President of gTLD Operations dated 1 August 2013. Please provide feedback on whether any of these recommendations should be included in the ALAC statement: “● Permit the expert panelists to consult with applicants for clarifications, especially when it would be significant in their grading. ● Provide a transparent result to community applicants after the CPE so they can know the criteria on which and why they did not receive the maximum score. ● Allow a community applicant that does not pass the evaluation to discuss the results with the expert panel, and allow for reconsideration by the expert panel after such discussions. ● Implement a CPE review mechanism by the NGPC for all applicants that achieved a threshold-level score in the test, but did not pass. The threshold would be determined by the NGPC.” END *Extract on the EIU from the CPE Guidelines Document as REFERENCE in reviewing the above* The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the business information arm of The Economist Group, publisher of The Economist. Through a global network of more than 900 analysts and contributors, the EIU continuously assesses political, economic, and business conditions in more than 200 countries. As the world’s leading provider of country intelligence, the EIU helps executives, governments, and institutions by providing timely, reliable, and impartial analysis. The EIU was selected as a Panel Firm for the gTLD evaluation process based on a number of criteria, including:  The panel will be an internationally recognized firm or organization with significant demonstrated expertise in the evaluation and assessment of proposals in which the relationship of the proposal to a defined public or private community plays an important role.  The provider must be able to convene a linguistically and culturally diverse panel capable, in the aggregate, of evaluating Applications from a wide variety of different communities.  The panel must be able to exercise consistent and somewhat subjective judgment in making its evaluations in order to reach conclusions that are compelling and defensible, and  The panel must be able to document the way in which it has done so in each case. The evaluation process will respect the principles of fairness, transparency, avoiding potential conflicts of interest, and non-discrimination. Consistency of approach in scoring Applications will be of particular importance. The following principles characterize the EIU evaluation process for gTLD applications:  All EIU evaluators must ensure that no conflicts of interest exist.  All EIU evaluators must undergo training and be fully cognizant of all CPE requirements as listed in the Applicant Guidebook. This process will include a pilot testing process.  EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.  Language skills will also considered in the selection of evaluators and the assignment of specific Applications.  All applications will be evaluated and scored, in the first instance by two evaluators, working independently.  All Applications will subsequently be reviewed by members of the core project team to verify accuracy and compliance with the AGB, and to ensure consistency of approach across all applications.  The EIU will work closely with ICANN when questions arise and when additional information may be required to evaluate an application.  The EIU will fully cooperate with ICANN’s quality control process. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM Subject: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update<https://community.icann.org/x/1wGMAg> that has been prepared by The Economist Intelligence Unit as well as the draft Statement. Additional information on this Statement, can be found on the At-Large Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update from ICANN Workspace< https://community.icann.org/x/1wGMAg>. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 29-August-2013 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Motion to approve RoP E-mail Guide
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

I submit the following motion to approve the ALAC Rules of Procedure E-mail Guide, a copy of which is attached to this message. Once seconded, I request that the Chair initiate an online vote. Alan ===================== Whereas the ALAC approved a revised Rules of Procedure on 03 April 2013 and to become effective several associated documents also need to be approved by the ALAC It is resolved that the ALAC approves the ALAC Rules of Procedure E-mail Guide 2013-08-26. The document is linked at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rules+of+Procedure.

3 2

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, Hong Xue has provided an excellent draft on the revised Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements that pertain to the TMCH here: < https://community.icann.org/x/11Z-Ag> My comments, which are posted on the wiki, are as follows: Dear Hong, This is an excellent draft. I generally agree with the statement, but there is an issue with regard to paragraph 3. The requirement that registries "MUST check all labels in a variant set against the Domain Name Label List for Trademark Claims before any domain names in the set are registered" works perfectly for languages with scripts that have consistent IDN tables like the Han script for the Chinese language. This is because the result of any check involving consistent IDN tables would yield the same results. For the Arabic script (the second most widely used writing system in the world after the Latin script), the result would not be consistent because the IDN tables for Arabic are inconsistent and would result in risks/confusion for registrants, trademark holders as well as end users. I think we need to draw from the SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications on Active Variant TLDs Report Recommendation 11 that states "When registries calculate variant sets for use in validation during registration, such calculations must be done against all of the implemented LGRs covering the scrit, which the label is applied for." Note that the SSAC refers to LGRs and not IDN Tables because there is a distinction and we can explain what that distinction is and why it is important to make that distinction. We should also make a recommendation on how to mitigate the problem faced by languages/scripts with inconsistent IDN Tables. I would be happy to draft the sections that apply to this problem. Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:31 AM Subject: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements<https://community.icann.org/x/11Z-Ag>" in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the At-Large Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/11Z-Ag>. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 02-September-2013 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Fwd: GNSO PDP Improvements Paper - for your review
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 24, 2013

Aug. 24, 2013

>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:01:44 -0700 >Subject: [council] GNSO PDP Improvements Paper - for your review > >Dear All, > >As requested in Durban, please find attached for your review and >consideration a paper that further builds on the ideas and >suggestions that were put forward in the presentation on possible >GNSO PDP Improvements. > >With best regards, > >Marika

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Something we didn't think about.
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

For the record, it was sent for its interest, not because I thought it needed our formal attention. Funny, curious, interesting are all words that come to mind. Alan At 21/08/2013 12:38 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective. > >This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial >sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any >application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what >little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished. > > From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system > is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent > when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO > as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to > manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on > the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM > and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion > between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and > even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting. > >The only product that I have extracted from this event is >entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a >string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same >string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its >inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate >this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to >pay for their Range Rovers. > >Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone >like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous >mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more >demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a >botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far >and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be >far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and >the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all >consequences of the expansion was simply impossible. > >IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter >these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those >after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, >from what I can tell. > >- Evan > > > >On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity > > objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments > > for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. >Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/ > > >Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of >us to have caught this earlier... > > > >Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using. > >Oops > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

3 3

Fwd: Re: [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

Dear all, following-up on the thread earlier today entitled "Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN", please be so kind to find my response and follow-up with Steve Crocker and Cherine Chalaby, respectively Chair of the Board and Chair of the Board New gTLD Program Committee. The posting of the Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines for Community review and Input appears to be a process that's already driven by the CPE panel firm & ICANN Staff so it would be for the Board New gTLD Program Committee to follow-up with the CPE panel firm to delay its closing date. Still - as ever, we're again in a race against time to have a comment drafted and ratified in time. Utilising our own deadline of 6 September, this translates to the following: ACTION Matt/Staff: please create "Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines Posted for Community Review and Input" WIKI in our At-Large Policy Development Page *as soon as possible* Rinalia: since you've flagged this, please be so kind to hold the pen on this too - taking into account all of the input that's already been received from Jean-Jacques and Carlton. More input welcome, of course! Timeline: First Draft ready and posted: 23 August 2013 23:59 UTC At-Large Comments Open: immediately as soon as WIKI page is created At-Large Comments Close: 29 August 2013, 0:00 UTC (5 working day At-Large discussion) Final Draft Posted: 29 August 2013, 23:59 UTC (1 day to finalise this) ALAC Vote Begins: 30 August 2013, 0:00 UTC ALAC Vote Ends: 5 September 2013, 23:59 UTC (5 working day vote) Statement submitted: 6 September 2013 12:00 UTC latest (is the CPE panel firm based in Europe?) Best regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:31:03 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com> CC: Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Michelle Bright <michelle.bright(a)icann.org>, Megan Bishop <megan.bishop(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, Christine Willett <christine.willett(a)icann.org> Dear Steve, Dear Cherine, following up on the two statements referenced below, I am pleased to be able to confirm the following: Ratified by the ALAC with 14 votes in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions: * AL-ALAC-ST-0813-02-00-EN, ALAC Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention You can verify voting results independently on: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3299kUc64M7r5tBjD9fkzMTE Also ratified by the ALAC with 14 votes in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions: * AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN, ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation You can verify voting results independently on: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=32988WDhhypwcgrV7nzTj3qj On a similar, follow-up note, I am in receipt of a published news about the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) published on 16 August 2013 (last Friday). http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13… This asks for Community Review and Input by 30 August 2013, 23:59 UTC. Whilst I do realise that time is of the essence, the opening of a community input window for less than 15 days is, in the context of At-Large, the summer holiday period and the guidelines for community public comment periods of 21 days already being judged too short by the community - very poor indeed. Since the subject of Community Priority Evaluation is of utmost importance to the At-Large Community, following up on our Statement AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN, (ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation), we urge you to take into account this Statement in your current deliberations regarding an evaluation panel. We also strongly request an extension of the deadline of the "Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines Posted for Community Review and Input" to at least 21 days from 16 August, which takes us to a 6 September 2013 deadline. Whilst a very challenging schedule to reach end users in our 5 regions, the ALAC will aim to submit an additional, ratified Statement by that date. Please be so kind to check and make sure that a Statement submitted at that date will be taken into account by the Committee and/or CPE Panel Firm. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 11/08/2013 19:22, Cherine Chalaby wrote: > Olivier, > As stated in Steve's note below, the NGPC and staff will handle the > two ALAC Statements. > Best regards, > Cherine > > From: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com <mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>> > Date: Sunday, 11 August 2013 17:05 > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> > Cc: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com <mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>>, > Cherine Mohsen Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org > <mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff > <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, > "Heather.Dryden Dryden" <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca > <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org > <mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org > <mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org>>, Michelle Bright > <michelle.bright(a)icann.org <mailto:michelle.bright@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community > Priority Evaluation > > Olivier, et al, > > I acknowledge receipt of > > * AL-ALAC-ST-0813-02-00-EN, ALAC Statement on the Preferential > Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention > * AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN, ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in > Community Priority Evaluation > > > In keeping with our interaction at the "skillet" session in Beijing, I > note you have sent these as formal advice to the Board, and I applaud. > We will track and respond. > > MICHELLE, please put these into the tracking process. (OLIVIER: Do we > need the full string to keep track of these, or would something like > ALAC-13-02 and ALAC-13-03 be sufficient?) > > Because these pertain directly and specifically to the new gTLD > program, the substantive treatment of this advice belongs in the New > gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). I leave it to Cherine to handle these. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > On Aug 11, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com > <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: > >> Att: >> Steve Crocker - ICANN Chair >> Cherine Chalaby - Chair of the Board new gTLD Program Committee Committee >> >> Dear Steve, >> Dear Cherine, >> >> please be so kind to find attached the "ALAC Statement on Community >> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation". >> >> This Advice is provided to the Board before ALAC ratification due to its >> time sensitive nature. It should be read in conjuction with our "ALAC >> Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in >> String Contention", sent under separate cover. At-Large Staff will >> confirm results of the ALAC vote when it is concluded. >> >> Please be so kind to confirm receipt and consideration of its contents >> in the discussions of the Board new gTLD Program Committee. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >> ALAC Chair >> <AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN.pdf> > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC-ExCom mailing list ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

2 1

Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, ICANN published news about the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) on 16 August 2013 (last Friday). *Highlights from the announcement ( http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13… ): * · -CPE will begin late September 2013 · -Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the sole CPE panel firm (there is no mention of Interconnect Communications) · -EIU has developed a set of guidelines based on Applicant Guidebook criteria. *View the guidelines document »<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-16aug13-en.pdf>[PDF, 803 KB] * · Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe(a)icann.org with a very short deadline (30 August 2013 at 23:59 UTC). Inclusion of input is entirely at the discretion of the CPE panel firm. · The last 2 pages of the CPE guidelines list the EIU’s qualifications for community evaluations, which in my opinion confirm the ALAC’s concerns about having relevant and appropriate community-related expertise in the CPE panel. (See extracted text on the EIU at the end of this mail). *Thoughts* 1. Our statement to the board on community expertise in the CPE stands in terms of validity. Let's see what the response is (if any). 2. Who conducts the training for the CPE evaluators is an open question. 3. The time constraint is a significant deterrent in providing any consultative form of ALAC/At-Large comment or input (if any). Whether or not the community wishes to comment specifically on the evaluation guidelines is an open question. *[Extract from pages19-20 of the CPE Guidelines on the EIU]* The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the business information arm of The Economist Group, publisher of The Economist. Through a global network of more than 900 analysts and contributors, the EIU continuously assesses political, economic, and business conditions in more than 200 countries. As the world’s leading provider of country intelligence, the EIU helps executives, governments, and institutions by providing timely, reliable, and impartial analysis. The EIU was selected as a Panel Firm for the gTLD evaluation process based on a number of criteria, including: · The panel will be an internationally recognized firm or organization with significant demonstrated expertise in the evaluation and assessment of proposals in which the relationship of the proposal to a defined public or private community plays an important role. · The provider must be able to convene a linguistically and culturally diverse panel capable, in the aggregate, of evaluating Applications from a wide variety of different communities. · The panel must be able to exercise consistent and somewhat subjective judgment in making its evaluations in order to reach conclusions that are compelling and defensible, and · The panel must be able to document the way in which it has done so in each case. The evaluation process will respect the principles of fairness, transparency, avoiding potential conflicts of interest, and non-discrimination. Consistency of approach in scoring Applications will be of particular importance. The following principles characterize the EIU evaluation process for gTLD applications: · All EIU evaluators must ensure that no conflicts of interest exist. · All EIU evaluators must undergo training and be fully cognizant of all CPE requirements as listed in the Applicant Guidebook. This process will include a pilot testing process. · EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications. · Language skills will also considered in the selection of evaluators and the assignment of specific Applications. · All applications will be evaluated and scored, in the first instance by two evaluators, working independently. · All Applications will subsequently be reviewed by members of the core project team to verify accuracy and compliance with the AGB, and to ensure consistency of approach across all applications. · The EIU will work closely with ICANN when questions arise and when additional information may be required to evaluate an application. · The EIU will fully cooperate with ICANN’s quality control process. [End of Extract] Any views on this? Best regards, Rinalia

4 10

Re: [ALAC] Something we didn't think about.
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

My understanding is that legally we are in murky water, since we seemingly have no formal way to stop the applications that have passed the objection, and no way to overturn the rejection, yet all three must be treated the same way. So perhaps you can define what "good sense" dictates? Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Alan At 20/08/2013 10:03 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >.....the zealot Paul [of Christian scriptures] says it this way 'we >see in part, and we prophesy in part'. > >So now then, here's a perfect opportunity to see if good sense will prevail. >-Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three >applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same >panelist) against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, >decided for Verisign. > >A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings >themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this occurrence. > ><http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/>http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/ > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

6 8

Re: [ALAC] Something we didn't think about.
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

I tend to agree with Evan and Hong (and JJS). Is this really an issue for us? Or is there a larger issue here that we can draw attention to, to make what are probably serious flaws in the whole gTLD provess at least a bit better? Maybe at least draw attention to the lack of consistency of decisions resulting from poor processes? I'm happy to be convinced there is a role for ALAC, I don't see a role so far. Holly On Wed 21/08/13 5:26 PM , JJS jjs.global(a)gmail.com sent: *Hong +1.* 2013/8/21 Hong Xue > The problem of inconsistency of the decisions lies largely in the case > procedural management, rather than the AGK or the rules. If all 3 > objections were filed roughly at the same time, there is no reason for the > IDRC to appoint 2 different panels. > > Hong > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective. > > > > This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial > sectors > > and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application > > for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest > > At-Large had in this matter vanished. > > > > From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is > > already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when > > registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a > selling > > point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when > > being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If > nobody > > cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get > > suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or > > .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the > > associated infighting. > > > > The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. > I > > find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, > > but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be > confusing) > > to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB > rules > > don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's > > existence to pay for their Range Rovers. > > > > Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like > me > > who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this > event > > is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many > > unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. > > Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, > > including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its > scale, > > its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, > anticipating > > all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible. > > > > IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these > > consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that > will > > affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell. > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg > wrote: > > > > > At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > > > On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >> > Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string > similarity > > >> > objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments > > >> > for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. > > >> Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/ > > >> > > > > > > Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us > to > > > have caught this earlier... > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using. > > >> > > > Oops > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> [2]; > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large [4]+ > > > **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [5]) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [6] > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [7] > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [8]) > > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy ">> Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ [9] > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [10] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [11] > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [12]) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [13] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [14] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [15]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [4] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [5] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [6] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [7] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [8] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [9] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iip… [10] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [11] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [12] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [13] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [14] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [15] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Something we didn't think about.
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same panelist) against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, decided for Verisign. A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this occurrence. http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/ Alan

2 1