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.”

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

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

“- 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.”

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."
  
 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”  

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.”

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 

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]

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.“

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.”

----

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.