[Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail - Community Scoring

Tue Dec 15 04:07:25 UTC 2020

I support the intent of this change; the suggestion to migrate the
threshold to prevail to a percentage instead of a number per se is a good
one.

Thanks,
Justine

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com> wrote:

> Hey Jeff and Cheryl
>
>
>
> I welcome and support the proposal of adjusting the scoring threshold to a
> percentage (75-80) of total evaluation scoring.
>
>
>
> This sounds completely in alignment with overall efforts to prioritize
> communities in the new gTLD program and this score threshold sounds much
> more realistic and reasonable as a scoring threshold for community
> applicants.
>
>
>
> Jamie Baxter
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Date: *Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail -
> Community Scoring
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the *Tenth Topical E-mail* on outstanding questions being “put to
> the list.”  This covers the question of overall scoring to pass CPE  (Topic
> 34)
>
>
>
> Remember:  We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY
> strong objection to these, we will put these into the document.  If you do
> have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously
> discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know
> ASAP.  Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with
> proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions
> will now be considered.
>
>
>
> Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
>
>
> I.                     *Current Applicant Guidebook Language:*  “An
> application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community
> priority evaluation.”
>
>
>
> II.                   *Issue*:  Some commenters to the Draft Final
> Report, including the ALAC, Infonetworks, Swiss Government, fTLD Registry
> Services supported lowering the threshold from 14 out of 16 points (approx.
> 88%) to 12 out of 16 points (75%).  However, it should be noted that during
> our discussions, not everyone supported the lowering of the threshold.
>
>
>
> III.                 *Discussion Points*
>
>
>
>    1. We have recommended a number of changes already to CPE, including
>       more transparency, more flexibility to recognize non-economic based
>       communities, increased scrutinization of letters of opposition, more
>       involvement in the selection process of evaluators, etc.  These changes
>       should go a long way to mitigate the issues faced in 2012.
>
>
>
>    1. That said, the current scoring framework was rigid and required a
>       perfect or nearly perfect scoring on every evaluation criteria.  As we
>       observed, very few applications were able to achieve community status.
>
>
>
>    1. On the other hand, merely lowering the scoring down to 12 (from 14)
>       would only have resulted in one additional application during the 2012
>       round achieving Community Priority.
>
>
>
>    1. Finally, even if we lower the threshold to an actual number, leaves
>       little flexibility to implement a new scoring mechanism (should the ICANN
>       community desire such a new mechanism) which encompasses all of the policy
>       changes we have recommended.
>
>
>
> IV.                *Proposal*:  *Given the Working Group’s affirmation of
> the importance of the prioritization of community-based applications, and
> subject to all of the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance set forth
> in this Report, the Working Group urges the Implementation Review Team to
> consider changing the passing score for achieving community priority status
> from a hard score of 14 out of 16 points to achieving a score of at least
> 75-80% of the total available evaluation points.  This not only emphasizes
> the importance we place on community-based applications, but also provides
> some flexibility in any future scoring methodology.*
>
>
>
> *Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on
> Wednesday, December 16, 2020.  Absent a strong showing of support on the
> list for this change, we will default back to the original text in the
> Draft Final Report.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/d451cec6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20512 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201215/d451cec6/image001-0001.png>