Dear Juan 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: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, August 17, 2025 at 17:14
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Draft CPE Vendor Selection Criteria

 

Hi Jared, 
Thanks for the update. Regarding to this topic we are proposing the following additions:

1.  To 1A, adding the bullet point: “The provider must also ensure that its evaluation methodology and clarifying questions are documented in clear, non-technical language to facilitate transparency and public accountability.” ICANN has added “The provider must also ensure that its evaluation methodology and clarifying questions are documented in plain language” to 3b. However, ICANN notes that clarifying questions are not public so the reference to transparency and public accountability do not seem relevant.

2A. To 2A, adding the bullet points:

“- include vulnerable communities such as indigenous peoples, linguistic minorities, marginalized populations, or communities with limited digital infrastructure; Added

“- represent non-commercial organizations including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, civil society groups, and grassroots movements that may have different organizational structures and documentation practices than commercial entities.” Added

2B. To 2B, replacing newly-deleted sentence with: "Panels must include members with demonstrated experience in community-focused work across sectors, such as community development, community organization, engagement, or community studies. At least one panelist should have specific experience working with vulnerable communities, non-commercial organizations, or marginalized populations." As discussed, ICANN believes this is potentially too limiting to include in the RFP, such that the number and quality of responses could be hindered. ICANN will take this into consideration as it reviews bidder responses and conducts bidder interviews and ultimately as it selects a provider.
  
 To 2B, New addition:
  “The provider must demonstrate capability to identify when applications involve vulnerable communities or non-commercial organizations that may require specialized evaluation approaches, including: 

·         Understanding of different organizational structures and governance models used by non-commercial entities  

·         Recognition of potential barriers faced by vulnerable communities in documentation or application processes   

·         Ability to assess community support and legitimacy using culturally appropriate methods”  

ICANN believes this is covered by the following language in the RFP:

  • “Provider and Panelists will need to determine when the Panel requires supplemental experience and/or expertise in a specific community to appropriately validate the application information and/or comments or letters received related to the application. The Panel may need to perform other limited validating research as required. Any research must be disclosed to the applicant. 

·         The Provider should demonstrate what processes and mechanisms they’ve developed for identifying such situations and for acquiring required expertise.

“

To 3A or B add: “Panels must reflect geographic, cultural, and stakeholder diversity to ensure balanced evaluation of applications from different regions and community types.” ICANN has added some language to this effect based on similar comments from the ALAC.

To the bullets of 4A, we seek the important additions of

- recognizing and accommodating different communication styles, organizational structures, and documentation practices that may be used by vulnerable communities and non-commercial organizations, and
  -applying cultural competency when evaluating applications from indigenous peoples, linguistic minorities, or other marginalized communities 

ICANN has added the following: Panel should be able to recognize through its own expertise or through consultation with supplemental non-evaluators the different types and needs of communities, such as communication styles, organizational structures, and documentation practices, especially when evaluating applications from indigenous peoples, linguistic minorities, or other marginalized communities

To 6A, should be expanded based on 4.4.5.1 CPE Clarifying Questions to include those who submit letters of opposition, to read: “To avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest, all questions for the applicant OR THE PERSON OR ENTITY THAT SUBMITTEDA LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO A CPE applicant….”  [caps for easy reading only]

Updated

To 6B, adding the sentence: “The provider must ensure that conflict of interest assessments consider potential biases or conflicts that may arise when evaluating  applications from vulnerable communities or non-commercial organizations, including any unconscious bias that may affect fair evaluation of non-traditional applicants.“ ICANN believes this is covered by the existing conflict of interest language.

Further, The Provider should make available to ICANN, and ICANN should publish, summary information regarding conflict-of-interest recusals to promote transparency while maintaining individual privacy.” ICANN will consider this further as it reviews bidder responses and moves to selection and contracting of a vendor.

----

We note that the edits above raise similar concerns to those raised Justine in her email, and provide detail and elaboration that her comment seeks and that we strongly agree is necessary.  e.g., Justine’s 2A request to: “Consider elaborating on what ‘diverse panel’ means.  We also fully agree that 2B is a “must” not a “should have.”

 

This comment, in the tight timeframe, has the input and support of two active representatives of NPOC and NCSG.

Best, Juan

 

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc.

Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia

NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO

M.Sc. Information Technology

 

Registered Linux User No.533108.

 

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Version: 3.1
GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

 



                                               

 

 

El sábado, 16 de agosto de 2025, 06:39:59 a.m. GMT-5, Justine Chew via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió:

 

 

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

1A

  • (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. 
  • Agree with deletion of "train" as provider should be expected to have or engage employees and/or subcontractors who already possess relevant expertise 
  • 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)
  • Would the RFP also address how provider should handle publication of the status of each evaluation, up to conclusion and including evaluation challenges?

1B

  • Consider including emphasizing timelines - we suggest that provider must demonstrate the ability to develop efficient work methods, evaluation/assessment approaches ....

2A

  • Consider elaborating on what "diverse panel" means.
  • 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 
  • Consider suggesting that a panel has the option to draw on ICANN community volunteers as supplemental non-evaluators

2B

  • Panelist must have the necessary capabilities and/or experience to evaluate applications etc rather than just "should have"
  • 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
  • Panel may need to perform other limited validating research as required  

3A

  • Please include the element of "fair and consistent outcomes" in the demonstration required

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. 

10

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



Separately, how would ICANN org establish whether selected provider is carrying out its contracted services satisfactorily during the contracted period?

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.

_______________________________________________
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.