Dear Anne, In the overview of the comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/draft-evaluation-guide-fo...>, we took care to include the following statement: “The criteria and guidelines for CPE are based on policy recommendations from the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...>, which are now enshrined in the Guidebook. The evaluation guide is intended to complement the information contained in the Guidebook, but does not replace or supersede it. This Public Comment proceeding is intended only to obtain input on the evaluation guide itself and not on the criteria and guidelines from the Guidebook.” We fully understand your concern and share it—any comments that “relitigate” issues or that suggest the changing of scoring, criteria, or key terms cannot be accommodated at this point. We would respond to such comments accordingly and would take on board only those comments that suggest improvements to the guide itself, as appropriate. Thank you, Jared From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 at 15:21 To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Re: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide Thanks Michael. Unfortunately, the request for public comment does not clarify that there should be no substantive changes to the scoring system. There are members of the community who believe that every public comment is an "opportunity to relitigate". You will readily see this in the comments. Applicants and potential applicants had to have planned their approach long ago and should be able to rely on the AGB published in December of 2025. There should be no "clarifications" that actually alter CPE examination standards or provide new definitions of terms. All of this was reviewed and established within the Sub Pro IRT deliberations after public comment on the AGB. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 9:48 AM Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, Thank you for the follow-up. Regarding your question, the guide will not be returning to the IRT for a separate review. Following the close of the public comment period, staff will incorporate any feedback and publish the final version, with changes expected to be minimal clarifications rather than substantive revisions. Waiting until the final post-comment version is published may help in assessing the extent of any differences from the current version. We appreciate the IRT’s engagement throughout this process and recognize the timing is not ideal. The current schedule reflects how this process was structured from the outset, and staff have worked as expeditiously as possible to reach this stage. It’s also worth noting that this remains an implementation matter rather than a change to the program. Should concerns rise to the level of a policy question, the liaison to the Council would be the appropriate next step. Thank you again for your attention to this work. Best, Michael From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 8:59 AM To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org>> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide Thanks Michael. The timing is still awkward. Is this guide coming back to the IRT after public comment is received? Or is ICANN publishing the official version before the opening of the round but not incorporating public comment? It's still not clear how the timing comports with Predictability interests of potential applicants. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 2:02 PM Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, Thank you for your comment. To clarify, we anticipate that any updates to the evaluation guide following the public comment period will be minimal in nature, reflecting only refinements and clarifications (if any) based on feedback received. The intent is not to make substantive changes, but to ensure the guide is as clear and precise as possible. We appreciate your perspective on predictability and will keep that principle in mind as we finalize the document. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 1:43 PM To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org>> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide Michael, I do not think that any changes should be made to the evaluation guidelines AFTER they are published prior to the opening of the round. Certainly the CPE provider who has been selected can be reviewing the document at the same time as the public comment period and recommend any necessary changes at that point. A strong underlying principle of this round in connection with Sub Pro policy is Predictability. To suggest that additional CPE Evaluation guidelines might need minor adjustments after being published to potential applicants appears to go against that principle. Why would ICANN be planning on revisions being needed after publication? Again, we are disrupting the planning process for applicants with this timing and these conditional risks of possible evaluation changes. (For the record, I do not represent any applicants or potential applicants.) Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:37 PM Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Justine, Please find the draft CPE Evaluation Guide attached. As noted earlier, it will be published for public comment tomorrow, so that will be the preferred channel for any feedback or input on the draft. If you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, March 21, 2026 at 7:49 PM To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide Dear Jared, Would you mind sharing again the latest (draft) CPE Evaluation Guide that is proposed to be put out for public comment? Would that be the same draft that, as you mentioned, would be published prior to the opening of the round? Thanks, Justine On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 at 02:36, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT Members, Following up on my email below, does the IRT have any input? If no concerns or further input, ICANN proposes moving forward with Option 2 (regular public comment period, which would close after 30 April). Thank you Jared From: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 15:22 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide Dear IRT Members, Following on the announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-announces-community-pri...> of the CPE vendor, I am writing regarding next steps for the public comment on the CPE Evaluation Guide. Relevant here are two SubPro Recs: 34.12 and 34.16 (for your reference, I have copied these into the bottom of this email). Specifically, I would appreciate the IRT’s input on the timing and length of the public comment. We are hopeful that we can open the public comment early next week. However, the RFP and contracting process took more time than expected, which means that we have less time before the opening of the round to both conduct the public comment and finalize the Evaluation Guide. We believe there are two options: 1. A shortened public comment period (30 days, closing the week of 20 April). This would allow us to complete the public comment and attempt to have a final draft before 30 April. The downside is that there is less time for community groups to develop their comments and for ICANN to consider those comments. 2. ICANN could conduct the public comment for the standard time (40 days), which would mean that the period closes after 30 April (likely week of 4 May), and the report and updated draft would be published after the round opens (likely week of 18 May). ICANN believes that the second option would ensure that community groups have sufficient time to develop comments and for ICANN and the CPE vendor to consider any feedback while still meeting the spirit of recommendations 34.12 and 34.16—the guide will be published (in draft form) prior to the opening of the round. ICANN anticipates that any changes to the document following the public comment would be minor. Additionally, the finalized guide would be available well before the closing of the application submission period. Given these options, does the IRT have any input? I would appreciate any feedback as soon as possible. Thank you very much! Best, Jared Relevant SubPro Recs Recommendation 34.12: The process to develop evaluation and selection criteria that will be used to choose a 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. Recommendation 34.16: All Community Priority Evaluation procedures (including any supplemental dispute provider rules) must be developed and published before the opening of the application submission period and must be readily and publicly available. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.