[ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Sep 6 21:57:12 UTC 2017

>Once created, this policy can/should take form 
>of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still 
>ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.

That is simply not the case. Relying on Advice to 
the Board on a matter being considered by a PDP 
is a recipe for disaster. Yes, when this review 
is completed we should comment. It is unlikely 
that we will not have something to say. And yes, 
if the ultimate policy decision in the PDP is not 
to our liking, we should say so, forcefully, to 
the Board. But if this matter is of importance to 
people, they should be involved in the discussion 
within the PDP where the policy will be drafted. 
Advice to the Board where we did not already 
provide strong input into the PDP is going to be a really hard sell.


At 05/09/2017 02:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>Given that this issue (the way communities were 
>evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly 
>unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why 
>is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community?
>I would like to flag this -- the treatment of 
>communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a 
>major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish 
>enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is 
>worth the effort of the community to draft a 
>comment, using the work of this Review and the 
>existing community efforts to engage in new 
>rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from 
>which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC 
>policy on the issue. Once created, this policy 
>can/should take form of Formal Advice to the 
>Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only 
>bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard.
>In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent 
>practice of being distracted by the trivial 
>while major issues of concern -- that are more 
>complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- 
>are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this 
>issue -- the treatment of communities -- become 
>one of the primary concerns of At-Large should 
>ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We 
>have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, 
>.kids among them -- as clear communities that 
>were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) 
>out of the ability to apply. The problem with 
>community evaluation also completely rendered 
>useless the Applicant Support Program that 
>At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round.
>I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't 
>do it alone. There must be broader desire within 
>the community for this than one person, should 
>this issue be given the weight of authority that 
>IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can.
>- Evan
>On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large 
>Staff <<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>staff at atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
>News Alert
>ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
>LOS ANGELES – 1 September 2017 – The Internet 
>Corporatiotion for Assigned Names and Numbers 
>(ICANN) today issued an 
>on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process.
>Community Priority Evaluation is a method to 
>resolve string contention, described in full 
>detail in section 4.2 of the 
>Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]. The 
>evaluation determines if the community based 
>application qualifies to earn priority and 
>eliminate all non-community applicants in the 
>contention set as well as any other 
>non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the 
>application is evaluated against the following 
>four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus 
>between Proposed String and Community; 
>Registration Policies, and Community 
>Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by 
>the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU 
>was selected for this role because it offers 
>premier business intelligence services, 
>providing political, economic, and public policy 
>analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe.
>At various times in the implementation of the 
>New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered 
>aspects of CPE process, including certain 
>concerns that some applicants have raised 
>regarding the process. On 
>September 2016[icann.org], the ICANN Board 
>directed the President and CEO, or his 
>designees, to undertake a review of the process 
>by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE 
>provider. In his 
>of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org] 
>[PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the 
>Board Governance Committee, provided additional 
>information about the scope and status of the 
>review. Below is additional information about 
>the review, as well as the current status of the 
>CPE process review. On 
>June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org], the ICANN 
>organization published an update on the Review.
>Below is the current status of the Review since the last update.
>Current Status of the Review
>June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] made clear 
>that the Review is being conducted in two 
>parallel tracks by 
>Consulting Inc.’s (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] 
>Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) 
>and Technology Practice. The work of the first 
>track, which focuses on gathering information 
>and materials from the ICANN organization, has 
>been completed. The work of the second track, 
>which focuses on gathering information and 
>materials from the CPE provider, is still 
>ongoing. The interview process of the CPE 
>provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs 
>has been completed. FTI is also working with the 
>CPE provider to obtain the reference materials 
>for the evaluations that are the subject of 
>Requests[icann.org]. The CPE provider has been 
>producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is 
>currently evaluating whether the CPE 
>provider’s production is complete. Once the 
>underlying information and data collection is 
>complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able 
>to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks.
>Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN 
>organization have received numerous inquiries 
>for documentation and information about the 
>Review. These inquiries have been and will 
>continue to be addressed through ICANN’s 
>Documentary Information Disclosure Policy 
>(DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at 
>The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to 
>conclude this Review and proceed with the 
>process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to 
>concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate.
>For more information about the CPE process, 
>please visit 
>ALAC-Announce mailing list
><mailto:ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Official Site: 
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto, Canada
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170906/bf0e1e58/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list