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

Tue Dec 15 12:50:33 UTC 2020

+1 as well!

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:48 AM
To: justine.chew at gmail.com; jeff at jjnsolutions.com
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail -
Community Scoring

+1

________________________________

Von: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
Datum: 15. Dezember 2020 um 05:08:12 MEZ
An: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 10th and (hopefully) Final Topical E-mail -
Community Scoring

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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> on behalf of Jeff Neuman
<jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:33 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"
<gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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

     *   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.

     *   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.

     *   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.

     *   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.

[cid:176648f63aa4cff311]

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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.