Dear Jeff: Thankyou for your quick reply. 1. Regarding your compromise proposal, emphasising criteria rather than appointments, I grant that would be an improvement, but I would defer at this stage to At Large members who have had more direct experience of CPE. My main points being to prevent repeating the errors of the past and to retain the option of more than one 'vendor' to accommodate the potential diversity among community applicants. More generally, I do not see what changes ICANN.org has made since 2012 in this, and other, contexts. 2. I don't accept your appeal to the 'muilti-stakeholder model' in this context. (a) the whole PDP has been biassed by the 'default' to the 2007 GNSO 'policy' and the 2012 AGB, arising at the time from a completely different stakeholder composition of the ICANN community than today.. (b) within the PDP there has been a strong bias towards the interests of the incumbent Registries and Registrars, present, making it very difficult to amend the 2012 AGB to favour greater openness, diversity and competition. That is not my idea of a multi-stakeholder model. Regards CW
El 4 de diciembre de 2020 a las 18:56 Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> escribió:
Christopher,
Thanks for your comments, but Leadership has to balance ALL of the comments that we get which means that very few proposals from any groups are adopted as is. That is one of the purposes of the multi-stakeholder model. The compromise proposal that we believe can get the most support is involving the community in the development of the selection/evaluation criteria as well as in the legal terms that relate to the CPE process. But ICANN as an organization needs to have some flexibility to act and look out for the corporation as a whole. It is ICANN Org that will have to manage their vendor, pay their vendor, etc.
Do you at least support the above? We understand you want the community to have more rights, but do you at least support these rights? We are trying to get to the end here. Giving the community involvement in the selection/evaluation criteria development is much better than the status quo, correct?
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com
From: mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 8th Topical E-mail: Selection of CPE Provider
Good evening:
I have a few comments:
1. The leadership proposal involves a significant dilution of the ALAC comments, which I do not approve. The demand for community involvement in the selection of CPE Providers stems from the very unsatisfactory outcome of the 2012 process. In my view, there was no consensus in the PDP supporting of the status quo.
More generally, it is implausible that a single Provider could deal with this competently and equitably world-wide.
2. Thus the text should refer throughout to 'ProviderS' and 'candidateS'.
Thankyou
CW
> >
El 4 de diciembre de 2020 a las 17:35 Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com > escribió:
All,
This is the Eighth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers an additional Community question stemming from the ALAC comments (Topic 34)
Remember: We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered.
Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Comment from the ALAC: The ALAC set forth some processes for the selection of the CPE Provider(s) – Namely, that there is a need for greater community participation in ICANN’s engagement of a CPE service provider/panelists, in the following 4 aspects: (i) the development of criteria by which ICANN Org is to evaluate and select candidates; (ii) the shortlisting of identified candidates; (iii) the final selection process; and (iv) the terms for inclusion into the contract between ICANN Org and the selected candidate.
Leadership Proposal. Based on the discussions that took place on the call as well as in other discussions of similar topics, we would recommend adopting the following recommendation:
“The Working Group recommends that the process to develop evaluation and selection criteria for the Community Priority Evaluation Provider (CPE Provider) must include mechanisms to ensure appropriate feedback from the ICANN community. In addition, any terms included in the contract between ICANN Org and the CPE Provider regarding the CPE process must be subject to public comment.”
Please note that based on previous discussions, Leadership did not believe that involving the community in the actual selection of the CPE Provider had sufficient support or would be acceptable to ICANN Org.
Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, December 8, 2020.
Sincerely,
Jeff & Cheryl
SubPro Co-Chairs
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com
>
> >
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
