Dear Justine and IRT members,

Please see my responses in red below. ICANN has taken this feedback into account and made updates to this portion of the RFP, where relevant/appropriate. ICANN expects now to publish the RFP by mid-week. We will notify the IRT once it is published. As we are on a time crunch and have already delayed publication, we will not be able to make any further updates to the RFP, but as noted below, many of the issues can be discussed with providers in the RFP process and/or during contract negotiation.

Thank you again for the input.

Best,

Jared

From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2025 at 04:39
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Draft CPE Vendor Selection Criteria

Dear Jared,

Given the extremely short turnaround time, I was only able to work with 2 ALAC colleagues to review the earlier version of the Draft Selection Criteria. I also subsequently reviewed the updated version and offer our aggregated feedback on the updated version for consideration.

Kind regards,

Justine

****
Feedback on Updated Version

(per Anne's comment) It is unclear what "evaluation projects" means so we suggest stipulating that provider must have significant demonstrated expertise in projects which call for evaluating applications against a defined set of criteria. Updated
Agree with deletion of "train" as provider should be expected to have or engage employees and/or subcontractors who already possess relevant expertise Ok
If feasible, consider specifying in the RFP how each type of experience - relevant project management and community application evaluation - will be assessed (see also 2A below) ICANN has a scoring rubric that it uses internally to make such assessments.
Would the RFP also address how provider should handle publication of the status of each evaluation, up to conclusion and including evaluation challenges? Yes, this is covered in other areas of the RFP

Consider including emphasizing timelines - we suggest that provider must demonstrate the ability to develop efficient work methods, evaluation/assessment approaches .... We note elsewhere in the RFP that “Completing individual evaluations within a 3-6 month timeframe. ICANN expects that there may be multiple evaluations occurring simultaneously and notes that the volume of evaluations could impact the time to completion. The provider should be prepared to complete a smaller batch of evaluations in 3-4 months, while a larger batch may take 4-6 months.” We will also emphasize this in any bidder interviews.

Consider elaborating on what "diverse panel" means. We will attempt to elaborate on how a potential provider could understand “diverse”
Consider strengthening reliance on supplemental non-evaluator expertise as mandatory or at the very least, a strongly advisable action, rather than leaving that to the panel's discretion, assuming assessment of expertise in evaluating community applications may not be strictly measurable or determinable without clear and specific metrics. We will take this into consideration as we review bidder responses and conduct bidder interviews and ultimately work with a chosen vendor. ICANN believes it may be limiting in terms of bidder responses if we require this.
Consider suggesting that a panel has the option to draw on ICANN community volunteers as supplemental non-evaluators. We will take this into consideration as we review bidder responses and conduct bidder interviews and ultimately work with a chosen vendor.

Panelist must have the necessary capabilities and/or experience to evaluate applications etc rather than just "should have" Updated
Unless panelists possess the requisite experience in community-focused work across sectors, such as community development, community organization, engagement, management and/or community studies, then provider and panelists will need to rely on supplemental experience and/or expertise in a specific community - we should as far as possible avoid having provider and panelists insisting that supplemental non-evaluators are not needed when they should We will take this into consideration as we review bidder responses and conduct bidder interviews and ultimately work with a chosen vendor. ICANN believes it may be limiting in terms of bidder responses if we require this.
Panel may need to perform other limited validating research as required Updated

Please include the element of "fair and consistent outcomes" in the demonstration required This particular bullet has been removed but consistency is addressed later in the document.

3B and 6B

Processes governing changes in panel composition under circumstances such as conflict of interest or clear biasness, should reflect short timelines for the same, and at no cost to applicant. We have added the point about “reflecting short timelines”; the cost will be covered elsewhere in the RFP and in discussions with the potential bidders. However, it is ICANN’s presumption that there will only be a flat fee for the applicant, as described in the AGB.

Provider must provide reference checks of relevant prior on evaluation services. Updated

Separately, how would ICANN org establish whether selected provider is carrying out its contracted services satisfactorily during the contracted period? This is covered in other areas of the RFP which provides more details on scope of work/deliverables/timeframes. Such details would also be established during the contracting process/negotiation.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 at 01:25, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Dear IRT Members,

As discussed, please see here the updated version of the Draft Selection Criteria [icann-community.atlassian.net] (please give the link a moment to load to the relevant spot on the page). This includes redlines based on IRT feedback from our call on 12 August 2025 [icann-community.atlassian.net].

I would kindly request any other feedback ASAP so that we can incorporate that by our publication date of Monday, 18 August 2025.

Should you have trouble with the link above, the document is on the working documents page [icann-community.atlassian.net], under Topic 34.

Thank you

Jared

From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Saturday, August 9, 2025 at 10:00
To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: Draft CPE Vendor Selection Criteria

Dear IRT Members,

As discussed on Thursday, 7 August, I’m sharing here the draft CPE vendor selection criteria, which we will review in our call on Tuesday, 12 August at 12:00 UTC. The document can be found on the respective meeting page here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/328105985/2025-08-12+SubPro+IRT+Meeting+151#:~:text=CPE%20RFP%20Vendor-,Selection,-Criteria.pdf [icann-community.atlassian.net].

Thank you,

Jared

--

Jared Erwin

Senior Director, New gTLD Program

Global Domains & Strategy

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

jared.erwin@icann.org

_______________________________________________
SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.