[ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 00:54:37 UTC 2013


Thanks, Carlton and Evan.  I wish to clarify that it is not a
re-consideration request, but a request for information.  Below are some of
the questions that have been pre-identified on this particular topic (may
need bit of tweaking given the Board response) - extracted from attached
doc.

---

We hereby expand on the concerns that were raised as follows:

 *Selection of Evaluator*

We seek clarification on the following regarding the selection of the CPE
panel firm:

   1. Was there an open call for tender?
   2. What were the selected channels for the call for tender?
   3. Was the call for tender only made in the English language and
   targeted exclusively at the English-speaking world?
   4. Were the criteria for selection published and have they changed since
   initial publication?
   5. How many applications were considered and who made the selection
   decision?
   6. What are the terms of the CPE service provision contract (i.e.,
   remuneration, confidentiality clause, obligations to include certain
   segments of the Internet user community, etc.)?
   7. Why was InterConnect Communications dropped from the CPE panel firm
   appointees?

 *Community Expertise*

We request further clarification on the EIU and its evaluation team,
criteria and principles:

   1. How has the EIU demonstrated its competence in evaluating proposals
   related to public communities?
   2. How diverse is the team of EIU evaluators and how well do they match
   the needs of the new gTLD applications opting for CPE?
   3. On “EIU evaluators are selected based on their knowledge of specific
   countries, regions and/or industries, as they pertain to Applications” –
   How would the evaluators treat applications that are global in scope and do
   not pertain to industries?  (Example: the community of kids; the gay
   community).
   4. On “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” - Who will conduct the training for
   the EIU evaluators?  What is the level of understanding about communities
   among the trainers?  How would understanding of what a community is be
   facilitated given that the Applicant Guidebook does not have a clear and
   agreed definition of “community”?  How would the sufficiency of community
   expertise among the evaluators be ascertained and ensured? (Recommendation:
   The team of evaluators should have both a broad understanding of the Domain
   Name System as well as specific knowledge of the Domain Name System market
   in under-served communities).
   5. On “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” – What is the
   recourse when these cannot be verified?


---- end

Rinalia

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1 to JJS' advice.
>
> I'm not sure it is a reconsideration we request.  I should think what we
> do is per Rinalia ask for further particulars on the EIU process to fulfill
> obligations. So list the gaps identified and for each, ask for explicit
> detailing of the process to mitigate.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs at fastmail.fm>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Rinalia,
>>
>> Why did I not immediately spell out a desirable next step? Being the
>> first to react, I wondered if my stance would be isolated, as has happened
>> to me more than once.
>>
>> I share your position that we should press the case and request whatever
>> seems necessary and justified.
>>
>> Jean-Jacques.
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at fastmail.fm>
>> Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Olivier MJ
>> Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Octobre 2013 21:32:54
>> Objet: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in
>> Community Priority Evaluation
>>
>>
>>
>> JJS,
>>
>> Legality aside, there are gaps in disclosure to the community on various
>> aspects including how the EIU fulfill certain criteria of interest to the
>> ALAC.
>>
>> The board's letter to the ALAC contains a cut and paste description of
>> the EIU, which we already know and which does not address the gaps.
>>
>> I am not satisfied with the board's response. It is perfectly fine for
>> them to reject the offer of community expertise and the rationale is
>> understandable, but the concern that led to the drafting of the statement
>> stands.
>>
>> The question now is as follows:
>> 1. Do we press the case and request for disclosure based on the issues
>> that have been pre-identified in the follow-up correspondence?
>> 2. Should we be cowed into not pressing the case because the action may
>> affect how the Board reacts to future advice on other issues?
>>
>> Rinalia
>> On Oct 2, 2013 5:10 PM, "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" < jjs at fastmail.fm >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Olivier & All,
>>
>> - from a legal standpoint, the process which led to the choice of EIU
>> seems watertight.
>>
>> - As for ALAC's offer, it is rejected without the NGPC feeling the need
>> to provide even the semblance of an explanation:
>> "The NGPC appreciates the offer made by the ALAC to provide community
>> volunteers to serves as Panel members or advisors. However, the NGPC
>> determined that it would not be appropriate to introduce external parties
>> to the EIU’s evaluation process."
>> In other words, there's nothing to see here, so just move on, you're
>> holding up the traffic.
>>
>> JJ.
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" < ocl at gih.com >
>> À: "ALAC Working List" < alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org >
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Octobre 2013 15:25:41
>> Objet: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community
>> Priority Evaluation
>>
>>
>> Dear ALAC members,
>>
>> please be so kind to find attached the response from the Chair of the
>> Board new gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to our ALAC Statement on
>> Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation:
>> http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-09aug13-en.htm
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>> ALAC Chair
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community
>> Priority Evaluation
>> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:15:52 -0700
>> From: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby at icann.org >
>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl at gih.com >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >On 30/09/2013 20:34, Cherine Chalaby wrote:
>> >> Dear Olivier,
>> >> Please find attached the NGPC response to the ALAC Statement on
>> >>Community
>> >> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation.
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Cherine
>> >>
>> >> On 11/08/2013 15:29, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" < ocl at gih.com >
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Att:
>> >>> Steve Crocker - ICANN Chair
>> >>> Cherine Chalaby - Chair of the Board new gTLD Program Committee
>> >>>Committee
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Steve,
>> >>> Dear Cherine,
>> >>>
>> >>> please be so kind to find attached the "ALAC Statement on Community
>> >>> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation".
>> >>>
>> >>> This Advice is provided to the Board before ALAC ratification due to
>> >>>its
>> >>> time sensitive nature. It should be read in conjuction with our "ALAC
>> >>> Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in
>> >>> String Contention", sent under separate cover. At-Large Staff will
>> >>> confirm results of the ALAC vote when it is concluded.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please be so kind to confirm receipt and consideration of its contents
>> >>> in the discussions of the Board new gTLD Program Committee.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>> >>> ALAC Chair
>> >
>> >--
>> >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC Correspondence to Board AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN-2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 40448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20131003/e7942e69/ALACCorrespondencetoBoardAL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN-2.doc>


More information about the ALAC mailing list