HI, I have some additional questions on this item and others.

  1. Based on your response below Jared, I’m assuming the questions and criteria language is open for editing updates. Is that right?
  2. Based on your response below, I’m assuming we should read all questions as a Community is as defined by the applicant, not the “Community” as perceived by anyone else? For example, let’s say I am involved in the ‘climbing community’. Climbing in general includes alpine, ice, rock, high mountain, mixed, sport, trad etc. My climbing is limited to ice climbing. Is the evaluator going to consider my definition of climbing (limited to ice) or will they be aware of the broader definition and take that into consideration when evaluating these questions? This is an important distinction because the scores at least for Establishment and Endorsement could be very different depending on the answer to the question “as defined by the applicant” or “as understood by the rest of the world”
  3. What level of guidance will evaluators receive from ICANN org when trying to score applications?
  4. How much influence will the evaluators pre-conceived ideas or research have over the scoring as compared to just the application material?
  5. How is verification completed for supporting organizations? Just a copy of the letter suffice? Or does the evaluator make a phone call? Is a survey outcome from the applicant enough?
  6. For scoring “support” or “opposition”, does the evaluator rely solely on submissions or do they get to survey the internet for evidence of support or opposition? If they do and their google skills are poor, how is their inability to find anything weighed into the scoring?  What are the thresholds?
  7. I’d like to point out the discrepancy between the Questions, Rubric and the Criteria. Why not just ask the applicant if they meet the criteria as defined?  Here is an example. Read the question then read the criteria. The Criteria are much more specific.

 

 

Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow.

 

Elaine

PS the third time through, my evaluation resulted in a failing score of 6. The first time through it was a passing score of 12.

 

 

From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 at 2:37 PM
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] RE: CPE Stress Test Materials

 

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Thanks Jared.  Yes that helps on both counts:

1.  reference to "community as defined by the applicant" and

2. alternate form of the name (not just shorter or abbreviated)

 

Anne


Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 2:15 PM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Anne,

 

Thanks for the question. Your assumption is correct, references to “community as defined” means “community as defined by the applicant in their responses to the application questions”. We can try to be clearer about this in our questions/criteria. But, for example, question 20 asks for the applicant to provide the name of their community, and question 21 asks for the applicant to spell out the mission and purpose. Additionally, question 24 and 25 ask about how the community is organized, this also plays into the definition. So, the application as a whole is the “definition” of the community. But again, we can try to be clearer and more consistent with this “as defined” language.

 

And yes, as for the “longer name”, we will update the criteria/explanations to account for that. I think there was a suggestion to say “alternate name/form” instead of “short form”—that seems to make sense.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Thank you

Jared

 

From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 at 17:05
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Cc: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] RE: CPE Stress Test Materials

 

Jared,

Regarding the Overview,  a couple of very general questions/comments:

 

Re: Nexus scoring - score is based on the proximity match of the proposed TLD to the "name of the community".  Who determines what the name of the community is?   There is a later reference in "Endorsement" to the "community as defined" and points awarded for the endorsement of the "community as defined"  - presumably by the applicant?  Can we be clearer as to what definition applies in relation to both Nexus and Endorsement?  (Scoring depends on this.)

 

Separately, as you know, I think that as to Nexus, the TLD name could be longer, not just shorter or an abbreviation but still be entitled to get maximum points.  The example I gave on the call was for the community of wizards to propose (dot)WIZARDRY.  One reason they might want to do this is to avoid the new rule on singulars and plurals by NOT applying for (dot)WIZARD or (dot)WIZARDS.  Again, is the "community name" for Nexus purposes determined by a Community Priority Panel or by the applicant?  If by the applicant, then the Criteria Overview should specify "community as defined by the applicant" in both the Nexus and the Endorsement sections.

 

Thank you,

Anne


Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:43 PM Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Jim,

 

The deadline is tomorrow, 3 December. We plan to discuss results on Thursday, 5 December. 

 

Thank you

Jared

 

On Dec 2, 2024, at 13:08, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:

Hey Jared and all – when is the deadline for completing this?

 

Thanks

 

Jim Prendergast

The Galway Strategy Group

+1 202-285-3699

 

From: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 5:35 PM
To: subpro-irt@icann.org
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] CPE Stress Test Materials

 

Dear IRT Members,

 

As discussed at our session at ICANN81, we would like to proceed with a “stress test” of the CPE criteria. To that end, I’m providing some materials (also found on the wiki page), which we will discuss at our call on Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 05:00-07:00 UTC.

 

On our call, we will go through the instructions/materials and I can answer any initial questions you may have. Time permitting, we will also walk through the criteria.

Thank you and speak to you later this evening LA time.

 

Best,

Jared

 

 

-- 

 

Jared Erwin

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.