Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
That is simply not the case. Relying on Advice to the Board on a matter being considered by a PDP is a recipe for disaster. Yes, when this review is completed we should comment. It is unlikely that we will not have something to say. And yes, if the ultimate policy decision in the PDP is not to our liking, we should say so, forcefully, to the Board. But if this matter is of importance to people, they should be involved in the discussion within the PDP where the policy will be drafted. Advice to the Board where we did not already provide strong input into the PDP is going to be a really hard sell. Alan At 05/09/2017 02:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Given that this issue (the way communities were evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community?
I would like to flag this -- the treatment of communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is worth the effort of the community to draft a comment, using the work of this Review and the existing community efforts to engage in new rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC policy on the issue. Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent practice of being distracted by the trivial while major issues of concern -- that are more complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this issue -- the treatment of communities -- become one of the primary concerns of At-Large should ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, .kids among them -- as clear communities that were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) out of the ability to apply. The problem with community evaluation also completely rendered useless the Applicant Support Program that At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round.
I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't do it alone. There must be broader desire within the community for this than one person, should this issue be given the weight of authority that IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can.
- Evan
On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
News Alert
----------
ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
LOS ANGELES 1 September 2017 The Internet Corporatiotion for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today issued an <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=>update[newgtlds.icann.org] on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process.
Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string contention, described in full detail in section 4.2 of the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=y5onXHYzQc_RdrOkrk2OFAxJJsMtyKaV4st0alTBkiw&e=>Applicant Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]. The evaluation determines if the community based application qualifies to earn priority and eliminate all non-community applicants in the contention set as well as any other non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the application is evaluated against the following four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration Policies, and Community Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU was selected for this role because it offers premier business intelligence services, providing political, economic, and public policy analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe.
At various times in the implementation of the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered aspects of CPE process, including certain concerns that some applicants have raised regarding the process. On <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2016-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=b_66o8gDzKo-vDAFpzh7zfJ9i2kZZEuTDHhiWn0ORU0&e=>17 September 2016[icann.org], the ICANN Board directed the President and CEO, or his designees, to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE provider. In his <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_disspain-2Dletter-2Dreview-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dcpe-2Dprocess-2D26apr17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=tccQoHoyUd_tO3vDdnSUKdo8LjIUfgrnpzNj6HMAffQ&e=>letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org] [PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, provided additional information about the scope and status of the review. Below is additional information about the review, as well as the current status of the CPE process review. On <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=>2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org], the ICANN organization published an update on the Review.
Below is the current status of the Review since the last update.
Current Status of the Review
The <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=>2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] made clear that the Review is being conducted in two parallel tracks by <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=I-apoKOnojHdSns9QteKkMx5qKJRheOfoIMm93UTNBk&e=>FTI Consulting Inc.âs (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) and Technology Practice. The work of the first track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the ICANN organization, has been completed. The work of the second track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the CPE provider, is still ongoing. The interview process of the CPE provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs has been completed. FTI is also working with the CPE provider to obtain the reference materials for the evaluations that are the subject of pending <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_accountability_reconsideration-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=D09yejutJd7LYkn0UUvUmuobp8S0Xwq-IPc0iRnaBVE&e=>Reconsideration Requests[icann.org]. The CPE provider has been producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is currently evaluating whether the CPE providerâs production is complete. Once the underlying information and data collection is complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks.
Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN organization have received numerous inquiries for documentation and information about the Review. These inquiries have been and will continue to be addressed through ICANNâs Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_transparency-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=LvjRu0jhlL3LCs471CQqtJ2nK-iOlhE8BAW4yZ99NKo&e=>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org].
The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to conclude this Review and proceed with the process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate.
For more information about the CPE process, please visit <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org].
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list <mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce
At-Large Official Site: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kXDHQ1axyti7GTscBY0i8r/IDsC3Ah7Fqjc3061mvZ+lYhOTkoh3+Vj1y2/WPigRMKhRXX51lGgIig6PaXXCj2ljsrtjUJl/FaaQEudVWv1aFqeqVSigjYffIrELwsdq X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I agree with Alan. Early involvement, as At-Large members usually do, is key to later provide a solid and documented advice to the Board. Hence I don’t think being involved during the PDP process excludes also providing strong advice, as Alan suggests, when time comes. Best regards, León
El 06/09/2017, a las 16:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
That is simply not the case. Relying on Advice to the Board on a matter being considered by a PDP is a recipe for disaster. Yes, when this review is completed we should comment. It is unlikely that we will not have something to say. And yes, if the ultimate policy decision in the PDP is not to our liking, we should say so, forcefully, to the Board. But if this matter is of importance to people, they should be involved in the discussion within the PDP where the policy will be drafted. Advice to the Board where we did not already provide strong input into the PDP is going to be a really hard sell.
Alan
At 05/09/2017 02:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Given that this issue (the way communities were evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community?
I would like to flag this -- the treatment of communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is worth the effort of the community to draft a comment, using the work of this Review and the existing community efforts to engage in new rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC policy on the issue. Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent practice of being distracted by the trivial while major issues of concern -- that are more complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this issue -- the treatment of communities -- become one of the primary concerns of At-Large should ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, .kids among them -- as clear communities that were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) out of the ability to apply. The problem with community evaluation also completely rendered useless the Applicant Support Program that At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round.
I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't do it alone. There must be broader desire within the community for this than one person, should this issue be given the weight of authority that IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can.
- Evan
On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > wrote:
[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&...>
News Alert
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-01-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno...>
ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
LOS ANGELES 1 September 2017 The Internet Corporatiotion for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today issued an update[newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...> on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process.
Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string contention, described in full detail in section 4.2 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>. The evaluation determines if the community based application qualifies to earn priority and eliminate all non-community applicants in the contention set as well as any other non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the application is evaluated against the following four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration Policies, and Community Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU was selected for this role because it offers premier business intelligence services, providing political, economic, and public policy analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe.
At various times in the implementation of the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered aspects of CPE process, including certain concerns that some applicants have raised regarding the process. On 17 September 2016[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, the ICANN Board directed the President and CEO, or his designees, to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE provider. In his letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> [PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, provided additional information about the scope and status of the review. Below is additional information about the review, as well as the current status of the CPE process review. On 2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, the ICANN organization published an update on the Review.
Below is the current status of the Review since the last update.
Current Status of the Review
The 2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...> made clear that the Review is being conducted in two parallel tracks by FTI Consulting Inc.âs (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&d...> Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) and Technology Practice. The work of the first track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the ICANN organization, has been completed. The work of the second track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the CPE provider, is still ongoing. The interview process of the CPE provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs has been completed. FTI is also working with the CPE provider to obtain the reference materials for the evaluations that are the subject of pending Reconsideration Requests[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>. The CPE provider has been producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is currently evaluating whether the CPE providerâs production is complete. Once the underlying information and data collection is complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks.
Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN organization have received numerous inquiries for documentation and information about the Review. These inquiries have been and will continue to be addressed through ICANNâs Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> .
The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to conclude this Review and proceed with the process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate.
For more information about the CPE process, please visithttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>.
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce>
At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kXDHQ1axyti7GTscBY0i8r/IDsC3Ah7Fqjc3061mvZ+lYhOTkoh3+Vj1y2/WPigRMKhRXX51lGgIig6PaXXCj2ljsrtjUJl/FaaQEudVWv1aFqeqVSigjYffIrELwsdq X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Thanks Leon, I must add that one of my points was that *IF* this matter is really important, it is problematic that so few people are participating in the PDP. Perhaps we need a tickler system whereby when a particular narrow subject is die to be on the agenda of a group with wider interests, particular people are notified to attend. Alan At 06/09/2017 07:20 PM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Alan. Early involvement, as At-Large members usually do, is key to later provide a solid and documented advice to the Board. Hence I donât think being involved during the PDP process excludes also providing strong advice, as Alan suggests, when time comes.
Best regards,
León
El 06/09/2017, a las 16:57, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
That is simply not the case. Relying on Advice to the Board on a matter being considered by a PDP is a recipe for disaster. Yes, when this review is completed we should comment. It is unlikely that we will not have something to say. And yes, if the ultimate policy decision in the PDP is not to our liking, we should say so, forcefully, to the Board. But if this matter is of importance to people, they should be involved in the discussion within the PDP where the policy will be drafted. Advice to the Board where we did not already provide strong input into the PDP is going to be a really hard sell.
Alan
At 05/09/2017 02:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Given that this issue (the way communities were evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community?
I would like to flag this -- the treatment of communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is worth the effort of the community to draft a comment, using the work of this Review and the existing community efforts to engage in new rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC policy on the issue. Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent practice of being distracted by the trivial while major issues of concern -- that are more complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this issue -- the treatment of communities -- become one of the primary concerns of At-Large should ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, .kids among them -- as clear communities that were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) out of the ability to apply. The problem with community evaluation also completely rendered useless the Applicant Support Program that At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round.
I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't do it alone. There must be broader desire within the community for this than one person, should this issue be given the weight of authority that IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can.
- Evan
On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff@atlarge.icann.org > wrote:
News Alert
ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
LOS ANGELES 1 September 2017 The Internet Corporatiotion for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today issued an <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=>update[newgtlds.icann.org] on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process. Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string contention, described in full detail in section 4.2 of the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=y5onXHYzQc_RdrOkrk2OFAxJJsMtyKaV4st0alTBkiw&e=>Applicant Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]. The evaluation determines if the community based application qualifies to earn priority and eliminate all non-community applicants in the contention set as well as any other non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the application is evaluated against the following four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration Policies, and Community Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU was selected for this role because it offers premier business intelligence services, providing political, economic, and public policy analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe. At various times in the implementation of the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered aspects of CPE process, including certain concerns that some applicants have raised regarding the process. On <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2016-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=b_66o8gDzKo-vDAFpzh7zfJ9i2kZZEuTDHhiWn0ORU0&e=>17 September 2016[icann.org], the ICANN Board directed the President and CEO, or his designees, to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE provider. In his <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_disspain-2Dletter-2Dreview-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dcpe-2Dprocess-2D26apr17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=tccQoHoyUd_tO3vDdnSUKdo8LjIUfgrnpzNj6HMAffQ&e=>letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org] [PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, provided additional information about the scope and status of the review. Below is additional information about the review, as well as the current status of the CPE process review. On <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=>2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org], the ICANN organization published an update on the Review. Below is the current status of the Review since the last update.
Current Status of the Review
The <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=>2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] made clear that the Review is being conducted in two parallel tracks by <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=I-apoKOnojHdSns9QteKkMx5qKJRheOfoIMm93UTNBk&e=>FTI Consulting Inc.âs (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) and Technology Practice. The work of the first track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the ICANN organization, has been completed. The work of the second track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the CPE provider, is still ongoing. The interview process of the CPE provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs has been completed. FTI is also working with the CPE provider to obtain the reference materials for the evaluations that are the subject of pending <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_accountability_reconsideration-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=D09yejutJd7LYkn0UUvUmuobp8S0Xwq-IPc0iRnaBVE&e=>Reconsideration Requests[icann.org]. The CPE provider has been producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is currently evaluating whether the CPE providerâs production is complete. Once the underlying information and data collection is complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks.
Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN organization have received numerous inquiries for documentation and information about the Review. These inquiries have been and will continue to be addressed through ICANNâs Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_transparency-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=LvjRu0jhlL3LCs471CQqtJ2nK-iOlhE8BAW4yZ99NKo&e=>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org] . The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to conclude this Review and proceed with the process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate. For more information about the CPE process, please visit<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=>https<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=>://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org].
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list <mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kXDHQ1axyti7GTscBY0i8r/IDsC3Ah7Fqjc3061mvZ+lYhOTkoh3+Vj1y2/WPigRMKhRXX51lGgIig6PaXXCj2ljsrtjUJl/FaaQEudVWv1aFqeqVSigjYffIrELwsdq X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@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+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía