Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN
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@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
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
[PDF, 803 KB]
· -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 *
· Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All, * *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff? * *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. * 2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
[PDF, 803 KB]
· -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 *
· Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Jean-Jacques, I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for. For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes. P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information. best regards, Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
[PDF, 803 KB]
· -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 *
· Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
*Dear Rinalia, * *sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word "details" was unfortunate, and I apologize. * *I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the questions you formulated. * *The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up to the best international standards. * *Best regards, * *Jean-Jacques. * * * 2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.
For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes.
P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information.
best regards,
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
[PDF, 803 KB]
· -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 *
· Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of
specific
countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Jean-Jacques, Please don't apologize. It is not necessary. I believe we are in clear alignment. My primary frustration with the new gTLD program is that the key questions that should have informed and influenced the development of the program parameters seem to not have been dealt with. We are left with a situation where we have to deal with effects (contemplated or otherwise). Our only recourse appears to be ad hoc attempts at correction with no pre-prepared process and time allocation that allow for proper corrections in ICANN's rush to implement (even when people knew the limits of human knowlege and rationality back when the program was developed as well as the imbalance of interest representation within ICANN). Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 3:54 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Rinalia,
* *sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word "details" was unfortunate, and I apologize.
* *I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the questions you formulated.
* *The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up to the best international standards.
* *Best regards, * *Jean-Jacques. * * *
2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.
For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes.
P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information.
best regards,
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
[PDF, 803 KB]
· -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 *
· Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing newgtld-cpe@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of
specific
countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Rinalia, Of course, you are entirely correct, but sadly that's the history of ICANN. Whenever I see more "unknown unknowns" which were actually known but sneakily brushed under the carpet and that now stink the room so much that ICANN needs to address them at the very last minute, I am reminded of a significant Statement from the ALAC which was published a few months before the Board gave the green light on the launch of new gTLDs. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-08dec10-en.htm Of course, at the time, nobody gave any consideration to the ALAC's advice. So to people who now tell me how great it is to see the ALAC grow and improve, I return the compliment and say how happy I am to see the ICANN leadership grow and improve because they now read ALAC Statements. Had their incompetent predecessors done the same, ICANN would not be in the position it is now in. But unfortunately we cannot turn the clocks back so let's not reminisce about yesterday. Kind regards, Olivier On 21/08/2013 11:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques,
Please don't apologize. It is not necessary. I believe we are in clear alignment.
My primary frustration with the new gTLD program is that the key questions that should have informed and influenced the development of the program parameters seem to not have been dealt with.
We are left with a situation where we have to deal with effects (contemplated or otherwise). Our only recourse appears to be ad hoc attempts at correction with no pre-prepared process and time allocation that allow for proper corrections in ICANN's rush to implement (even when people knew the limits of human knowlege and rationality back when the program was developed as well as the imbalance of interest representation within ICANN).
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 3:54 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Rinalia,
* *sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word "details" was unfortunate, and I apologize.
* *I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the questions you formulated.
* *The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up to the best international standards.
* *Best regards, * *Jean-Jacques. * * *
2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.
For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes.
P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information.
best regards,
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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. The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, I raised the issue of CPE to trigger thinking about possible ALAC action. The course of action based on what I have read on this email thread is as follows: 1. Raise questions about the process and criteria that led to the appointment of the EIU. JJS has flagged some of the key questions. 2. Raise questions about how ICANN will ensure that EIU will have appropriate community expertise among its cadre of evaluators and what kind of training they will have that provides community orientation/sensitivity. Carlton has flagged some of the questions. Happy to draft something for the ALAC's consideration. Best regards, Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 7:50 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
Of course, you are entirely correct, but sadly that's the history of ICANN.
Whenever I see more "unknown unknowns" which were actually known but sneakily brushed under the carpet and that now stink the room so much that ICANN needs to address them at the very last minute, I am reminded of a significant Statement from the ALAC which was published a few months before the Board gave the green light on the launch of new gTLDs. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-08dec10-en.htm
Of course, at the time, nobody gave any consideration to the ALAC's advice. So to people who now tell me how great it is to see the ALAC grow and improve, I return the compliment and say how happy I am to see the ICANN leadership grow and improve because they now read ALAC Statements. Had their incompetent predecessors done the same, ICANN would not be in the position it is now in.
But unfortunately we cannot turn the clocks back so let's not reminisce about yesterday.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 21/08/2013 11:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques,
Please don't apologize. It is not necessary. I believe we are in clear alignment.
My primary frustration with the new gTLD program is that the key questions that should have informed and influenced the development of the program parameters seem to not have been dealt with.
We are left with a situation where we have to deal with effects (contemplated or otherwise). Our only recourse appears to be ad hoc attempts at correction with no pre-prepared process and time allocation that allow for proper corrections in ICANN's rush to implement (even when people knew the limits of human knowlege and rationality back when the program was developed as well as the imbalance of interest representation within ICANN).
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 3:54 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Rinalia,
* *sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word "details" was unfortunate, and I apologize.
* *I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the questions you formulated.
* *The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up to the best international standards.
* *Best regards, * *Jean-Jacques. * * *
2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.
For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes.
P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information.
best regards,
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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@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. > Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
> · 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. The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
> 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. > See above.
> *[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. > We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
> 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. > Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
> · 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. > So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
> · 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 > Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
> · 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. > This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
> · EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific > countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications. > So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
> · 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 > -Carlton
> _______________________________________________ > 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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Rinalia, thanks for your follow-up. On 21/08/2013 14:24, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
1. Raise questions about the process and criteria that led to the appointment of the EIU. JJS has flagged some of the key questions.
I have asked Staff to raise this internally and am awaiting a reply.
2. Raise questions about how ICANN will ensure that EIU will have appropriate community expertise among its cadre of evaluators and what kind of training they will have that provides community orientation/sensitivity. Carlton has flagged some of the questions.
This was already raised in a Statement we have sent to the Board and the Board newgTLD Committee with both Chairs acknowledging receipt of the Statement and promising a further reply soon.
Happy to draft something for the ALAC's consideration.
Well I am not too sure about what further Statement to send out. Staff should provide me with a confirmation of the votes today and I'll follow-up with the Chairs of the Board and the Board new gTLD Committee, providing them with the ALAC's vote counts. I will take this opportunity to ask specifically about the EIU question which we have raised. If you believe I should raise any other question along this line, please let me know ASAP so I'll integrate it in my email. Kind regards, Olivier
This solution is fine with me, but I request that you share with the ALAC the articulation of the questions that you will pose/raise as follow up with the board. The issues raised in the statements to the board did not address all the issues raised in this thread. Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 9:30 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
thanks for your follow-up.
On 21/08/2013 14:24, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
1. Raise questions about the process and criteria that led to the appointment of the EIU. JJS has flagged some of the key questions.
I have asked Staff to raise this internally and am awaiting a reply.
2. Raise questions about how ICANN will ensure that EIU will have appropriate community expertise among its cadre of evaluators and what kind of training they will have that provides community orientation/sensitivity. Carlton has flagged some of the questions.
This was already raised in a Statement we have sent to the Board and the Board newgTLD Committee with both Chairs acknowledging receipt of the Statement and promising a further reply soon.
Happy to draft something for the ALAC's consideration.
Well I am not too sure about what further Statement to send out. Staff should provide me with a confirmation of the votes today and I'll follow-up with the Chairs of the Board and the Board new gTLD Committee, providing them with the ALAC's vote counts. I will take this opportunity to ask specifically about the EIU question which we have raised. If you believe I should raise any other question along this line, please let me know ASAP so I'll integrate it in my email.
Kind regards,
Olivier
+1. Very insightful......and the observations are ever grist to the arguments for global public interest concerns JJS has consistently championed. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques,
Please don't apologize. It is not necessary. I believe we are in clear alignment.
My primary frustration with the new gTLD program is that the key questions that should have informed and influenced the development of the program parameters seem to not have been dealt with.
We are left with a situation where we have to deal with effects (contemplated or otherwise). Our only recourse appears to be ad hoc attempts at correction with no pre-prepared process and time allocation that allow for proper corrections in ICANN's rush to implement (even when people knew the limits of human knowlege and rationality back when the program was developed as well as the imbalance of interest representation within ICANN).
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 3:54 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Rinalia,
* *sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word "details" was unfortunate, and I apologize.
* *I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the questions you formulated.
* *The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up to the best international standards.
* *Best regards, * *Jean-Jacques. * * *
2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones you presented are fundamental and require airing, but I think we must grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.
For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the "right" subjective outcomes.
P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more information.
best regards,
Rinalia On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Rinalia & Carlton,* *All,
* *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose EIU: - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON? * *- What were the criteria? Were these published? * *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user community)? * *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its Chairperson? Senior Staff?
* *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global principles. * * * *Jean-Jacques. *
2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Dear Rinalia: See my thoughts inline.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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.
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they got this attitude?
· 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.
The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU, especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold. The trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that our interests are recognized.
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.
See above.
*[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.
We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped. In context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis. What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the 'right' data points.
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.
Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community', how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done. I'm not sure the interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our concept.
· 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.
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that could get our seal of approval. Maybe a followup statement should double down here.
· 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
Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.
· 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.
This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on definitional agreement of 'community'.
· EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of
specific
countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.
· 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
-Carlton
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim