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


On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 9:48 AM Michael Karakash <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>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 8:59 AM
To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>
Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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

 

 

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 2:02 PM Michael Karakash <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>
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 1:43 PM
To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>
Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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

 

 

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:37 PM Michael Karakash via SubPro-IRT <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>
Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2026 at 7:49 PM
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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> 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>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 15:22
To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Draft CPE Evaluation Guide

 

Dear IRT Members,

 

Following on the announcement 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
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.

_______________________________________________
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.