Thanks, Carlton and Evan. I wish to clarify that it is not a re-consideration request, but a request for information. Below are some of the questions that have been pre-identified on this particular topic (may need bit of tweaking given the Board response) - extracted from attached doc. --- We hereby expand on the concerns that were raised as follows: *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* 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. On “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? ---- end Rinalia On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
+1 to JJS' advice.
I'm not sure it is a reconsideration we request. I should think what we do is per Rinalia ask for further particulars on the EIU process to fulfill obligations. So list the gaps identified and for each, ask for explicit detailing of the process to mitigate.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs@fastmail.fm>wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
Why did I not immediately spell out a desirable next step? Being the first to react, I wondered if my stance would be isolated, as has happened to me more than once.
I share your position that we should press the case and request whatever seems necessary and justified.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@fastmail.fm> Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Octobre 2013 21:32:54 Objet: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation
JJS,
Legality aside, there are gaps in disclosure to the community on various aspects including how the EIU fulfill certain criteria of interest to the ALAC.
The board's letter to the ALAC contains a cut and paste description of the EIU, which we already know and which does not address the gaps.
I am not satisfied with the board's response. It is perfectly fine for them to reject the offer of community expertise and the rationale is understandable, but the concern that led to the drafting of the statement stands.
The question now is as follows: 1. Do we press the case and request for disclosure based on the issues that have been pre-identified in the follow-up correspondence? 2. Should we be cowed into not pressing the case because the action may affect how the Board reacts to future advice on other issues?
Rinalia On Oct 2, 2013 5:10 PM, "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" < jjs@fastmail.fm > wrote:
Olivier & All,
- from a legal standpoint, the process which led to the choice of EIU seems watertight.
- As for ALAC's offer, it is rejected without the NGPC feeling the need to provide even the semblance of an explanation: "The NGPC appreciates the offer made by the ALAC to provide community volunteers to serves as Panel members or advisors. However, the NGPC determined that it would not be appropriate to introduce external parties to the EIU’s evaluation process." In other words, there's nothing to see here, so just move on, you're holding up the traffic.
JJ.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" < ocl@gih.com > À: "ALAC Working List" < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Octobre 2013 15:25:41 Objet: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation
Dear ALAC members,
please be so kind to find attached the response from the Chair of the Board new gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to our ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation: http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-09aug13-en.htm
Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:15:52 -0700 From: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby@icann.org > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl@gih.com >
On 30/09/2013 20:34, Cherine Chalaby wrote:
Dear Olivier, Please find attached the NGPC response to the ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation. Best regards, Cherine
On 11/08/2013 15:29, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" < 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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)