[ALAC] Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN

Wed Aug 21 07:54:49 UTC 2013

*Dear Rinalia,

*
*sorry if my previous email seemed dismissive: my choice of the word
"details" was unfortunate, and I apologize.

*
*I completely agree with your analysis, and support you in bringing up the
questions you formulated.

*
*The point I raised, regarding the choice of EIU, is related to an area
where ICANN (Board and/or top management) has sometimes shown insufficient
concern for the global impact of its decisions, and has not held itself up
to the best international standards.

*
*Best regards,
*
*Jean-Jacques.
*
*
*

2013/8/21 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>

> 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)
>>>
>>
>>