Considerable CPE guidance that was provided in past versions was deleted from this version. Why is this?
One aspect not discussed yet but that should be included in this is the awareness raising component at the start of the program. Was it communicated effectively? Could that be improved? How?
Here are some comments on the spreadsheet track changes in the summary are attached.
Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process.
A clear explanation of the interplay between ICANN accountability mechanisms and the New gTLD program should be scoped and explained, with stress testing and worst case scenarios examined and published.
An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.
The words 'substantial' and 'significant' as well as 'explicit' and 'implict' require practical definitions and precise testing processes.
The application process will provide a pre-defined roadmap for applicants that encourages the submission of applications for new top-level domains.
See point 1 regarding interplay between accountability mechanisms. Note that the CWG Accountability initial proposal considers a broad expansion to the DIDP and RfR processes. --- Don't pretend this isn't going to be an issue for some/many applicants and ICANN because it sure as heck is currently...
GDD Question: Can additional guidance be provided on demonstrating (community) qualifications to earn preference?
Recommend convening an expert panel of independent community experts (notably social scientists, economists, anthropologists and geographers) to assist the group in developing an appropriate science based evaluation.