[Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE: Supplementary Guidelines 4-B: Opposition
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Nov 14 14:12:53 UTC 2019
+1. Tx All for interesting meetings in Montreal!
Kathy
On 11/13/2019 2:08 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> HI Jeff et al,
>
> I think we will need a redlined version of the CPE Guidelines in order
> to send that out for public comment. (We have noted a few changes are
> required, e.g. the reference to the community having existed since
> 2007.) In the context of appeals, I am still very concerned about the
> use of the word “considerable” in CPE evaluations. I don’t know any
> way for an appeals panel to objectively judge the word “considerable”
> in relation to a standard for overturning the first panel’s decision.
>
> Anne
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Justine Chew
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2019 7:19 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Jamie Baxter
> <jamie at dotgay.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] CPE: Supplementary Guidelines 4-B:
> Opposition
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks, Jeff, for this.
>
> First, I largely support what Jamie has set out in his email in
> respect of 4-B Opposition, and your conclusion at the top of your email.
>
> Second, I appreciate that it's been mentioned and generally received
> support, I just wanted to reiterate that selection of the next CPE
> provider - in terms of community input into the RFP process - would be
> crucial.
>
> *Third, I wanted to clarify -- for implementation, what additional
> guidance should (or could) be provided to draw clearer distinction
> between opposition (i.e. opposite to community endorsement) and
> objection? *
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justine
> -----
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 05:04, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
>
> This one we discussed on the call extensively and I think we
> already discussed making sure that the there be a balance of
> support and opposition. If an Applicant demonstrates support from
> the community and earns full credit on Support, then the
> opposition MUST be substantial in order get points taken off. One
> letter from one individual or group should not necessarily be
> enough to lose a point (unless that group is substantial in terms
> of representing the community).
>
> Here is what the FTI Group states on Opposition.
>
> _Sub-Criterion 4-B: Opposition_
>
> To receive two points for Opposition, an application must have no
> opposition of relevance.^197 To receive one point, an application
> may have relevant opposition from no more than one group of
> non-negligible size.^198
>
> Nine CPE reports recorded one point for Opposition.^199 In each
> instance, the CPE Provider determined that the underlying
> applications received relevant opposition from no more than one
> group of non-negligible size. Opposition was deemed relevant on
> several grounds: (i) opposition was from a community not
> identified in the application but had an association to the
> applied-for string;^200 (ii) the application was subject to a
> legal rights objection (LRO);^201 or (iii) opposition was not made
> for any reason forbidden by the Applicant Guidebook, such as
> competition or obstruction.^202
>
> ^
>
> Seventeen CPE reports recorded the full two points for
> Opposition.^203 The CPE Provider determined that the applications
> corresponding to 17 CPE reports did not have any letters of
> relevant opposition.^204 Ultimately, FTI observed that the CPE
> Provider engaged in a consistent evaluation process that strictly
> adhered to the criteria and requirements set forth in the
> Applicant Guidebook and CPE Guidelines. FTI observed no instances
> where the CPE Provider's evaluation process deviated from the
> applicable guidelines pertaining to the Community Endorsement
> criterion. Based on FTI's investigation, FTI concludes that the
> CPE Provider consistently applied the Community Endorsement
> criterion in all CPEs. While the CPE Provider awarded different
> scores to different applications, the scoring decisions were based
> on the same rationale, namely a failure to satisfy the
> requirements that are set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and CPE
> Guidelines.
>
> ^197 Id. at Pg. 4-17.
>
> ^198 Id.
>
> ^199 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-
> 7217-en.pdf); MERCK (RH) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-
> 1702-73085-en.pdf); SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-1830-1672-en.pdf);
> GAY CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> GAY 2 CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> LLP CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.pdf);
> LLC CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.pdf);
> INC CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.pdf);
> and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-en.pdf).
> No CPE reports recorded zero points for Opposition. 200 LLP CPE
> Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.pdf);
> LLC CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.pdf);
> and INC CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.pdf).
>
>
> ^201 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980-
> 7217-en.pdf); and MERCK (RH) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merckcpe-1-1702-73085-en.pdf).
>
>
> ^202 GAY CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> GAY 2 CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-en.pdf);
> SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-
> 1830-1672-en.pdf); and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-en.pdf).
>
>
> ^203 ART (eflux) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302-
> en.pdf); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/musiccpe-1-1115-14110-en.pdf);
> ECO CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-
> 912-59314-en.pdf); HOTEL CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1-
> 1032-95136-en.pdf); OSAKA CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe1-901-9391-en.pdf);
> SPA CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309-
> 81322-en.pdf); RADIO CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083-
> 39123-en.pdf). TENNIS CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1-
> 1723-69677-en.pdf); MLS CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888-
> 47714-en.pdf); CPA (USA) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911-
> 56672-en.pdf); CPA (AU) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744-
> 1971-en.pdf); GMBH CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273-
> 63351-en.pdf); IMMO CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000-
> 62742-en.pdf); SHOP (GMO) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-
> 890-52063-en.pdf); KIDS CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309-
> 46695-en.pdf); TAXI CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025-
> 18840-en.pdf); and ART (Dadotart) CPE Report
> (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe1-1097-20833-en.pdf).
>
>
> ^204 Id.
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: _jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>_
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter <jamie at dotgay.com <mailto:jamie at dotgay.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; 'Emily Barabas'
> <emily.barabas at icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations
> Review of Supplementary Guidelines
>
> Good afternoon Working Group members
>
> On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was
> asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any
> items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB
> for subsequent procedures.
>
> My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these
> notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted
> from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue
> to need further clarification before the next AGB is published.
>
> 1-A Delineation
>
> Page 4: “Delineation”
>
> The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that
> denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a
> clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did
> not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next
> AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially
> since many linguistic and cultural communities are
> straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a
> membership card system.
>
> Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation
> were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in
> the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples
> already noted by the EIU?
>
> 2-A Nexus
>
> “Identify”
>
> The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the
> applied for string closely describes the community _or_ the
> community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if
> an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are
> not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but
> instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus.
>
> My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can
> select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a
> string that identifies the specific members of that community.
> Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the
> community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community.
>
> The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the
> definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths.
>
> 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it
> is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be
> called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197)
> 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example,
> a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for
> “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197)
>
> What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both
> paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2
> points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the
> applicant had the choice to design their application around a name
> of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in
> the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc).
>
> This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved
> when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community
> members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however
> does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been
> achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community.
>
> The second example could suggest that if an internationally
> recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local
> tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community
> (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc –
> all tertiary parts of the community that also have other
> identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of
> “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks
> of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list
> above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not
> identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster
> that also covers football).
>
> Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing
> further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths
> to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the
> flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two
> distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the
> definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that
> the string be a term the community members naturally call
> themselves. This may have happened because the two examples
> outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion
> without distinction.
>
> Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it
> should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means
> that the applied for string closely describes the community _or_
> the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to
> success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and
> identifiable name of the community (known by those inside &
> outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the
> actual members in the community.
>
> 4-B Opposition
>
> “Relevance”
>
> As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B
> must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented
> support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the
> opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly
> addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have
> the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet
> that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round.
>
> To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of
> organizations from around the world supporting an application, and
> those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of
> other local and regional organizations, then an expression of
> opposition from one single, small and even locally based
> organization from within the defined community among the thousands
> globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2
> CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Baxter
>
> dotgay LLC
>
> jamie at dotgay.com <mailto:jamie at dotgay.com>
>
> www.dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/>
>
> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)
>
> Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com
> <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/>
>
> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay
> <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay>
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM
> *To:* Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review
> of Supplementary Guidelines
>
> All,
>
> I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each
> of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your
> attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a
> result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the
> US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for
> consideration by the Working Group.
>
> 1. “ACTION ITEM:**WG members will go through the guidelines and
> flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the
> AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf”
>
> One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that
> there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by
> the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were
> submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending
> that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the
> very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That
> message has been delivered loud and clear.
>
> Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group
> could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the
> link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether
> those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be
> formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the
> fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of
> the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this
> will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how
> CPE evaluations will work.
>
> 2. _Clarifying Questions and CPE:_ A second item which looks
> likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators
> should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions
> process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from
> the applicant on items where it has questions or issues.
> However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to
> be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community
> application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)?
> In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the
> application questions about themselves and how representative
> they are. They can drill down on details about what it is
> that they oppose, etc. *Those on the call thought this may be
> a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition
> or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and
> communities. *
>
> We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to
> input other than that which we got on the call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: _jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>_
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Emily
> Barabas
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019.
> */These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the
> recording, transcript, or the chat,/* which will be posted at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.
>
> On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE
> evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the
> Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve
> predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a
> follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to
> review the 2012 CPE guidelines
> (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf)
> and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the
> guidelines that they believe _should not_ be incorporated into the
> AGB.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
> **
>
> *Action Item: *
>
> **
>
> ACTION ITEM:**WG members will go through the guidelines and flag
> anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for
> subsequent procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest
>
> * No SOI updates
>
> * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart
> available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the
> draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available
> at:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2.a. Community Applications
>
> * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level
> agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)
> process must be more transparent and predictable; All
> evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the
> application process opens and made easily and readily available.
> * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to
> address concerns raised about community applications before
> going forward with subsequent procedures.
> * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed
> in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were
> made available late in the process. Key point raised in the
> public comments -- information contained in the guidelines
> needs to be available to applicants before applications are
> submitted.
> * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by
> the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook?
> * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed
> in the public comments, which were problematic?
> * *ACTION ITEM: *WG members will go through the guidelines and
> flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the
> AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at:
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf
> * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater
> predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for
> future evaluators.
> * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for
> interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s
> interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from
> what the evaluators took away when they developed their
> guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not
> exist in subsequent procedures.
> * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving
> transparency and predictability of the CPE process.
> * Review of comments on the definition of community.
> * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further
> restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and
> suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going
> forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a
> structured system to the community -- institutionalized or
> industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority.
> * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE
> panelists? They might better understand the definition of
> community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their
> public comments that members of grassroots organizations
> should serve as panelists.
> * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might
> understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a
> clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to
> delineate who should get priority rather than having a
> specific definition.
> * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was
> looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with
> independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as
> much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members
> of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could
> community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role
> instead?
> * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they
> approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus.
> * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and
> predictability of the CPE process in relation to the
> preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more
> transparent and predictable.
> * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be
> applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE.
> This will address public comments that raised concerns about
> conflict of interest.
> * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not
> prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be
> substantial opposition.
> * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was
> research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a
> link to the information provided. This is based on comments
> from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG.
> * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be
> lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for
> an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways
> to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and
> timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN
> Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase
> efficiencies.
> * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to
> scope the task with a service provider and set clear
> expectations. The service provider should be responsible for
> remaining within budget.
> * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE
> evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time.
> * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All
> evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the
> application process opens and made easily and readily available.
> * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The
> CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask
> clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a
> dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of
> opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns
> about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could
> result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could
> ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials
> would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally
> available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair.
> * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators
> and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft
> recommendation for the WG to consider further.
> * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change
> their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t
> change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for
> the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators
> understand the application. There is little room for lobbying
> from this perspective.
> * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still
> this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency.
> * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send
> clarification questions to those filing opposition letters?
> One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to
> bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the
> opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about
> community-based objections but about opposition to
> community-based applications.
> * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less
> restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying
> and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this
> recommendation.
> * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the
> existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be
> much support for increasing limits on word count.
> * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to
> assist communities, particularly those from underserved
> regions in preparing applications in order to level the
> playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic
> Applicant Support.
> * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative
> benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold.
> * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or
> weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the
> comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined
> in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support.
> There should be a balance.
> * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there
> should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants --
> perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to
> applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community.
> This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address
> some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well.
> * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the
> application, however it was not translated into the scoring
> criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a
> commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to
> part of the scoring criteria.
> * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be
> preferential treatment for community applications -- there is
> general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about
> the definition of community. Registrars would like to
> eliminate the concept of community.
> * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report.
> * Review of comments in response to the question - to what
> extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published
> guidance and guidelines?
> * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements
> about letters of support should be clear and transparent up
> front.
> * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists
> and program goals raised by the Council of Europe.
> * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global
> Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of
> Europe’s comments on this topic.
>
> 3. AOB
>
> * None.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to
> the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or
> copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If
> you have received this message in error, please return it to the
> sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your
> reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that
> the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses
> and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept
> liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and
> not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The
> Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company
> registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and
> registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN
> England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and
> Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30
> Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176,
> having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh,
> Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and
> Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600,
> McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company
> registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite
> 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. _www.avast.com_
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to
> the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or
> copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If
> you have received this message in error, please return it to the
> sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your
> reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that
> the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses
> and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept
> liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and
> not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The
> Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company
> registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and
> registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN
> England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and
> Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30
> Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176,
> having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh,
> Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and
> Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600,
> McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company
> registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite
> 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see _www.comlaude.com_
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> _Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org_
> _https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg_
> _______________________________________________
> 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.<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of
> this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment
> to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any
> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191114/28232830/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list