<html>

<body>

Thanks Leon, <br><br>

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.<br><br>

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.<br><br>

Alan<br><br>

At 06/09/2017 07:20 PM, LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa wrote:<br>

<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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 donâ€™t think being

involved during the PDP process excludes also providing strong advice, as

Alan suggests, when time comes.<br><br>

Best regards,<br><br>

<br>

LeÃ³n<br><br>

<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">El 06/09/2017, a las 16:57, Alan

Greenberg

<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>

> escribiÃ³:<br><br>

<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Once created, this policy

can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, <u>which is still

ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself

heard</u>.</blockquote><br>

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.<br><br>

Alan<br><br>

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

<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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?<br><br>

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.<br><br>

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.<br><br>

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.<br><br>

- Evan<br><br>

<br><br>

On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large Staff

<<a href="mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org">staff@atlarge.icann.org</a>

> wrote:

<dl>

<dd> <br><br>

<dd>

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=6RvSzjTvjB7S1VSBjP6ihfBO5ryNhTuEVsj102jJfy4&e=">

[icann.org]</a> <br>

<br><br>

<dd><h2><b>News Alert</b></h2><br>

<br>

<br><br>

<dd>

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2017-2D09-2D01-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=AEcTVM6uqbZyGV3iSJc_E42sDIWYp5EXRja_fHGMFqE&e=">

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-01-en[icann.org]</a><hr>

<br><br>

<dd><h2><b>ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority

Evaluation Process </b></h2><br>

<br>

<br>

<dd>LOS ANGELES – 1 September 2017 – The Internet Corporatiotion for

Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today issued an

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=">

update[newgtlds.icann.org]</a> on the review of the Community Priority

Evaluation (CPE) process.<br>

<dd>Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string

contention, described in full detail in section 4.2 of the

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=y5onXHYzQc_RdrOkrk2OFAxJJsMtyKaV4st0alTBkiw&e=">

Applicant Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]</a>. 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.<br>

<dd>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

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2016-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=b_66o8gDzKo-vDAFpzh7zfJ9i2kZZEuTDHhiWn0ORU0&e=">

17 September 2016[icann.org]</a>, 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

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_disspain-2Dletter-2Dreview-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dcpe-2Dprocess-2D26apr17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=tccQoHoyUd_tO3vDdnSUKdo8LjIUfgrnpzNj6HMAffQ&e=">

letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org]</a> [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

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=">

2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org]</a>, the ICANN organization published an

update on the Review.<br>

<dd>Below is the current status of the Review since the last update.<br>

<br><br>

<dd><h3><b>Current Status of the Review</b></h3><br>

<br>

<br>

<dd>The

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe_process-2Dreview-2Dupdate-2D02jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=8_2bJs86sdpIGh-d0eCBKLOV7gGDSJmICeCVwDqJseQ&e=">

2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org]</a> made clear that the Review is

being conducted in two parallel tracks by

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=I-apoKOnojHdSns9QteKkMx5qKJRheOfoIMm93UTNBk&e=">

FTI Consulting Inc.Ã¢€™s (FTI)[fticonsulting.com]</a> 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

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_accountability_reconsideration-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=D09yejutJd7LYkn0UUvUmuobp8S0Xwq-IPc0iRnaBVE&e=">

Reconsideration Requests[icann.org]</a>. The CPE provider has been

producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is currently evaluating

whether the CPE providerÃ¢€™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.<br><br>

<dd>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

ICANNÃ¢€™s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are

published on the DIDP page at

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_transparency-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=LvjRu0jhlL3LCs471CQqtJ2nK-iOlhE8BAW4yZ99NKo&e=">

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org]</a>

 .<br>

<dd>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.<br>

<dd>For more information about the CPE process, please

visit<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=">

https</a>

<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_cpe&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=xzfqc9z84D1KNQBHM_8mQtANhQCeSWynaCwxY1BH8YE&s=qNE6yYTV2JqbDi_y0nUWZkDcHov-bQY-sCkYJGxlTM4&e=">

://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org]</a>.<br>

<br>

<dd>_______________________________________________

<dd>ALAC-Announce mailing list

<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org">

ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>

<dd>

<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce" eudora="autourl">

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce</a><br>

<dd>At-Large Official Site:

<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>

<br><br>

</dl><br><br>

<br>

-- <br>

Evan Leibovitch<br>

Toronto, Canada

<dl>

<dd>Em: evan at telly dot org

<dd>Sk: evanleibovitch

<dd>Tw: el56<br><br>

</dl>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>

Content-Disposition: inline<br>

X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>

<x-tab>        </x-tab>

1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kXDHQ1axyti7GTscBY0i8r/IDsC3Ah7Fqjc3061mvZ+lYhOTkoh3+Vj1y2/WPigRMKhRXX51lGgIig6PaXXCj2ljsrtjUJl/FaaQEudVWv1aFqeqVSigjYffIrELwsdq<br>

X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>

<x-tab>        </x-tab>

ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);<br>

<br>

_______________________________________________<br>

ALAC mailing list<br>

<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>

<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<br>

ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC

)</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>

ALAC mailing list<br>

<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>

<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>

At-Large Online:

<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>

<br>

ALAC Working Wiki:

<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>

</blockquote></blockquote></body>

</html>