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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Sep 7 03:43:49 UTC 2017

Thanks Leon,

I must add that one of my points was that *IF* 
this matter is really important, it is 
problematic that so few people are participating in the PDP.

Perhaps we need a tickler system whereby when a 
particular narrow subject is die to be on the 
agenda of a group with wider interests, 
particular people are notified to attend.


At 06/09/2017 07:20 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>I agree with Alan. Early involvement, as 
>At-Large members usually do, is key to later 
>provide a solid and documented advice to the 
>Board. Hence I don’t think being involved 
>during the PDP process excludes also providing 
>strong advice, as Alan suggests, when time comes.
>Best regards,
>>El 06/09/2017, a las 16:57, Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> escribió:
>>>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 pending 
>>>Requests[icann.org]. The CPE provider has been 
>>>producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is 
>>>currently evaluating whether the CPE 
>>>provider̢۪s 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 ICANN̢۪s 
>>>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, 
>>>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
>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>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
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170906/8799ce2e/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list