COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION GUIDELINES POSTED FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW AND INPUT

...

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments beginsALAC notes that ICANN has appointed the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as the sole new gTLD Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) panel firm and that the firm has developed a set of guidelines for CPE, which is open for stakeholder feedback from 16 August - 9 September 2013 (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13-en).

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

The ALAC has raised concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in the CPE panel firm via our Statement to the ICANN Board dated 9 August 2013 (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN).  We re-iterate our concern that the EIU may have a natural familiarity and pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications emphasizing community service.  We wish to stress the importance of ensuring sufficient and relevant community-related expertise among the team of evaluators conducting the CPE evaluation.  

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?

CPE Guidelines Developed by the EIU

(Awaiting community input – if any)

Additional Recommendations on the CPE

Note to the ALAC:  The Community TLD Applicant Group (CTAG) is requesting for the following consideration in the CPE via a letter from the CTAG to the ICANN Vice President of gTLD Operations dated 1 August 2013.  Please provide feedback on whether any of these recommendations should be included in the ALAC Statement:

• Permit the expert panelists to consult with applicants for clarifications, especially when it would be significant in their grading.
• Provide a transparent result to community applicants after the CPE so they can know the criteria on which and why they did not receive the maximum score.
• Allow a community applicant that does not pass the evaluation to discuss the results with the expert panel, and allow for reconsideration by the expert panel after such discussions.
• Implement a CPE review mechanism by the NGPC for all applicants that achieved a threshold-level score in the test, but did not pass. The threshold would be determined by the NGPC.