10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring
This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: "An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation." II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group's affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:image002.png@01D6D1FC.0E863AD0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: “An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation.” II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group’s affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:image001.png@01D6D21C.59D5A820] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
I support the intent of this change; the suggestion to migrate the threshold to prevail to a percentage instead of a number per se is a good one. Thanks, Justine On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> wrote:
Hey Jeff and Cheryl
I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring.
This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants.
Jamie Baxter
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Date: *Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring
This is the *Tenth Topical E-mail* on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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.
Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I. *Current Applicant Guidebook Language:* “An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation.”
II. *Issue*: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold.
III. *Discussion Points*
1. We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012.
1. That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status.
1. On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority.
1. Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended.
IV. *Proposal*: *Given the Working Group’s affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology.*
*Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report.*
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list 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.
+1 ________________________________ Von: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Dezember 2020 um 05:08:12 MEZ An: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring I support the intent of this change; the suggestion to migrate the threshold to prevail to a percentage instead of a number per se is a good one. Thanks, Justine On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> wrote: Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: “An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation.” II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group’s affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:176648f63aa4cff311] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://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.
+1 as well! -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:48 AM To: justine.chew@gmail.com; jeff@jjnsolutions.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring +1 ________________________________ Von: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Dezember 2020 um 05:08:12 MEZ An: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring I support the intent of this change; the suggestion to migrate the threshold to prevail to a percentage instead of a number per se is a good one. Thanks, Justine On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> wrote: Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring
This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: "An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation." II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group's affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:176648f63aa4cff311] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://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.
I support moving from a fixed score to a percentage but not lowering the threshold from 87.7%. I think this will increase gaming opportunities for those that will take advantage of the system. I understand that some feel that community applications should be encouraged. Personally I do not agree and do not see why one type of application should be favored more than another which seems more like content-based choosing. But regardless, for the members of the WG who are worried about private resolution because it encourages applying for the wrong reason (i.e., with no intent to operate the string but instead to get a payout from private auction), lowering the threshold for CPE could potentially have the same result. To the extent that the threshold will be lowered, a specific threshold must be selected. It cannot be 75-80%. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commmerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring *EXTERNAL TO GT* +1 as well! -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:48 AM To: justine.chew@gmail.com; jeff@jjnsolutions.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring +1 ________________________________ Von: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Dezember 2020 um 05:08:12 MEZ An: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring I support the intent of this change; the suggestion to migrate the threshold to prevail to a percentage instead of a number per se is a good one. Thanks, Justine On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> wrote: Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring
This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: "An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation." II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group's affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:176648f63aa4cff311] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Sa3SdD8Ps... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
I support the change to 75-80% of total evaluation scoring. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:24 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: “An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation.” II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points a. We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. b. That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. c. On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. d. Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group’s affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:image002.png@01D6D288.1334C920] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
+1 BG Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn<https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2020 10:15 An: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring I support the change to 75-80% of total evaluation scoring. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:24 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Jeff and Cheryl I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring. This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community applicants. Jamie Baxter From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring This is the Tenth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE (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. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I. Current Applicant Guidebook Language: “An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation.” II. Issue: Some commenters to the Draft Final Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx. 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%). However, it should be noted that during our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold. III. Discussion Points * We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc. These changes should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012. * That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria. As we observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status. * On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14) would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012 round achieving Community Priority. * Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy changes we have recommended. IV. Proposal: Given the Working Group’s affirmation of the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least 75-80% of the total available evaluation points. This not only emphasizes the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides some flexibility in any future scoring methodology. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Absent a strong showing of support on the list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the Draft Final Report. [cid:image001.png@01D6D2D2.55435710] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (8)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Jamie Baxter -
Jeff Neuman -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Justine Chew -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com