[ALAC] Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN

Wed Aug 21 06:41:00 UTC 2013

Dear Jean-Jacques,

I have no problems with posing questions of principle and I think the ones
you presented are fundamental and require airing,  but I think we must
grapple with the implementation detail involving the EIU as well. The
reason being, at a practical level, it seems unlikely that ICANN would
change vendors at this stage of new gTLD implementation. At its best ICANN
may supplement EIU with the experts on community that we have argued for.

For me, the problems associated with variation in decisions regarding
string similarity involving .com and .cam as well as the decision involving
singular vs. plural strings carry an important lesson that the
direction/guidance/training evaluators get is really crucial for the
"right" subjective outcomes.

P.s. the call for vendors happened circa 2009 with selection announced in
Oct 2011 - all under Rod's regime. Veteran ALAC colleagues may have more
information.

best regards,

Rinalia
On Aug 21, 2013 12:01 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Rinalia & Carlton,*
> *All,
>
> *
> *as a regular reader of The Economist, I can vouch for the fact that it
> is one of the best weeklies in the world.** That being said, I suggest
> that someone (ALAC?) raise a few questions of principle with whoever chose
> EIU:
> - Was there an open call for tenders? Was this done only in
> English-language outlets? Was this sent out to a limited number of possible
> competitors, say in the English-speaking world, more specifically limited
> to countries connected with (and beneficiaires of) PRISM and/or ECHELON?
> *
> *- What were the criteria? Were these published?
> *
> *- What are the terms of the contract (remuneration, confidentiality
> clause, obligation to include certain segments of the Internet user
> community)?
> *
> *- Who chose the winner? The Board? The New gTLD Committee, or its
> Chairperson? Senior Staff?
>
> *
> *We can (rightly) argue about details. But let's not forget that
> defending the global public interest requires a constant attention to global
> principles.
> *
> *
> *
> *Jean-Jacques.
> *
>
>
> 2013/8/19 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>
>> 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)
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>>
>
>