[ALAC] Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN

[Carlton Samuels]

Dear Rinalia:
See my thoughts inline.

Best,
-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear ALAC Colleagues,
>
> ICANN published news about the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) on 16
> August 2013 (last Friday).
>
> *Highlights from the announcement (
>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13-en
> ):
> *
>
> ·       -CPE will begin late September 2013
>
> ·       -Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the sole CPE panel firm
> (there is no mention of Interconnect Communications)
>
> ·       -EIU has developed a set of guidelines based on Applicant Guidebook
> criteria.  *View the guidelines document
> »<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-16aug13-en.pdf
> >[PDF,
> 803 KB]
> *
>
> ·       Input can be provided on the guidelines by emailing
> newgtld-cpe at icann.org with a very short deadline (30 August 2013 at 23:59
> UTC).  Inclusion of input is entirely at the discretion of the CPE panel
> firm.
>
Looks to me like they sending the message 'we got this'. Wonder where they
got this attitude?

>
> ·       The last 2 pages of the CPE guidelines list the EIU’s
> qualifications for community evaluations, which in my opinion confirm the
> ALAC’s concerns about having relevant and appropriate community-related
> expertise in the CPE panel.  (See extracted text on the EIU at the end of
> this mail).
>
> *Thoughts*
>
> 1. Our statement to the board on community expertise in the CPE stands in
> terms of validity.  Let's see what the response is (if any).
>
> 2. Who conducts the training for the CPE evaluators is an open question.
>

The objective of these evaluations may have been misconstrued by the EIU,
especially when 'community' seems yet to be an enigmatic concept. So the
training would be critical to bringing the contractor back to fold.  The
trainer[s] therefore is/are the next best level for minimal assurance that
our interests are recognized.

>
> 3. The time constraint is a significant deterrent in providing any
> consultative form of ALAC/At-Large comment or input (if any).  Whether or
> not the community wishes to comment specifically on the evaluation
> guidelines is an open question.
>

See above.

>
> *[Extract from pages19-20 of the CPE Guidelines on the EIU]*
>
> The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the business information arm of
> The Economist Group, publisher of The Economist. Through a global network
> of more than 900 analysts and contributors, the EIU continuously assesses
> political, economic, and business conditions in more than 200 countries. As
> the world’s leading provider of country intelligence, the EIU helps
> executives, governments, and institutions by providing timely, reliable,
> and impartial analysis.
>

We know of the EIU; there are always grumblings about their published
analyses in my part of the world but relations have improved some since
they hired a few local stringers. Its the data that goes into the pot for
analysis that churns for the output so local interpretation has helped.  In
context and IMO, they can truly safely say they have expertise in analysis.
 What I'm not sure about is whether the frameworks in which their expertise
is legion fits in our concept of 'community' or they will have accessed the
'right' data points.

>
> The EIU was selected as a Panel Firm for the gTLD evaluation process based
> on a number of criteria, including:
>
> ·       The panel will be an internationally recognized firm or
> organization with significant demonstrated expertise in the evaluation and
> assessment of proposals in which the relationship of the proposal to a
> defined public or private community plays an important role.
>

Devil in the details; again in concept of our understanding of 'community',
how many 'public...community' evaluations have they done.  I'm not sure the
interests of money centre bankers and bondholders would rank high in our
concept.

>
> ·       The provider must be able to convene a linguistically and
> culturally diverse panel capable, in the aggregate, of evaluating
> Applications from a wide variety of different communities.
>
So here's a bit of light. Maybe they will come up with evaluators that
could get our seal of approval.  Maybe a followup statement should double
down here.

>
> ·       The panel must be able to exercise consistent and somewhat
> subjective judgment in making its evaluations in order to reach conclusions
> that are compelling and defensible, and
>

Let's see the criteria and we should have guidance on possible outcome.

>
> ·       The panel must be able to document the way in which it has done so
> in each case.
>
> The evaluation process will respect the principles of fairness,
> transparency, avoiding potential conflicts of interest, and
> non-discrimination. Consistency of approach in scoring Applications will be
> of particular importance.
>
> The following principles characterize the EIU evaluation process for gTLD
> applications:
>
> ·       All EIU evaluators must ensure that no conflicts of interest exist.
>
> ·       All EIU evaluators must undergo training and be fully cognizant of
> all CPE requirements as listed in the Applicant Guidebook. This process
> will include a pilot testing process.
>

This might be less than useful since the AGB is itself short on
definitional agreement of 'community'.

>
> ·       EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific
> countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications.
>

So we would need to look for broad understanding of the DNS and specific
knowledge of the DNS market in underserved communities.

>
> ·       Language skills will also considered in the selection of evaluators
> and the assignment of specific Applications.
>
> ·       All applications will be evaluated and scored, in the first
> instance by two evaluators, working independently.
>
> ·       All Applications will subsequently be reviewed by members of the
> core project team to verify accuracy and compliance with the AGB, and to
> ensure consistency of approach across all applications.
>
> ·       The EIU will work closely with ICANN when questions arise and when
> additional information may be required to evaluate an application.
>
> ·       The EIU will fully cooperate with ICANN’s quality control process.
>
>  [End of Extract]
>
>
> Any views on this?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>

-Carlton

> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>