[ALAC] Community Priority Evaluation Update from ICANN
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 15:30:10 UTC 2013
+1.
Very insightful......and the observations are ever grist to the arguments
for global public interest concerns JJS has consistently championed.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list