Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB.

Kind regards,

Emily

Notes and Action Items:

Action Item:

ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf

Notes:

1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest 

• No SOI updates

• Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit?usp=sharing

2.a. Community Applications

• Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available.
• CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures.
• Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. 
• Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook?
• Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic?
• ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf
• By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators.
• As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures.
• Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. 
• Review of comments on the definition of community. 
• One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority.
• Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists.
• Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. 
• In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? 
• The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. 
• Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable.
• Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest.
• Comment -  it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. 
• Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG.
• Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. 
• Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. 
• Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time.
• Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available.
• Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. 
• Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further.
• One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. 
• Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency.
• Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications.
• Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. 
• It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count.
• Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. 
• Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold.
• Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance.
• Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. 
• Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria.
• Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community.
• Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. 
• Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? 
• Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. 
• Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. 
• Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic.

3. AOB

• None.