[ALAC] Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 12:24:35 UTC 2013


Dear Olivier,

I raised the issue of CPE to trigger thinking about possible ALAC action.
The course of action based on what I have read on this email thread is as
follows:

1. Raise questions about the process and criteria that led to the
appointment of the EIU. JJS has flagged some of the key questions.

2. Raise questions about how ICANN will ensure that EIU will have
appropriate community expertise among its cadre of evaluators and what kind
of training they will have that provides community orientation/sensitivity.
Carlton has flagged some of the questions.

Happy to draft something for the ALAC's consideration.

Best regards,

Rinalia
On Aug 21, 2013 7:50 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Rinalia,
>
> Of course, you are entirely correct, but sadly that's the history of ICANN.
>
> Whenever I see more "unknown unknowns" which were actually known but
> sneakily brushed under the carpet and that now stink the room so much
> that ICANN needs to address them at the very last minute, I am reminded
> of a significant Statement from the ALAC which was published a few
> months before the Board gave the green light on the launch of new gTLDs.
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-08dec10-en.htm
>
> Of course, at the time, nobody gave any consideration to the ALAC's
> advice. So to people who now tell me how great it is to see the ALAC
> grow and improve, I return the compliment and say how happy I am to see
> the ICANN leadership grow and improve because they now read ALAC
> Statements. Had their incompetent predecessors done the same, ICANN
> would not be in the position it is now in.
>
> But unfortunately we cannot turn the clocks back so let's not reminisce
> about yesterday.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 21/08/2013 11:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> > Dear Jean-Jacques,
> >
> > Please don't apologize. It is not necessary. I believe we are in clear
> > alignment.
> >
> > My primary frustration with the new gTLD program is that the key
> questions
> > that should have informed and influenced the development of the program
> > parameters seem to not have been dealt with.
> >
> > We are left with a situation where we have to deal with effects
> > (contemplated or otherwise).  Our only recourse appears to be ad hoc
> > attempts at correction with no pre-prepared process and time allocation
> > that allow for proper corrections in ICANN's rush to implement (even when
> > people knew the limits of human knowlege and rationality back when the
> > program was developed as well as the imbalance of interest representation
> > within ICANN).
> >
> > Rinalia
> > On Aug 21, 2013 3:54 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> *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)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
> >
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list