RE: Comment on Community Priority Evaluation Scoring

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RE: Community Priority Evaluation Scoring 

 

In RNA Partner's DAG v2 comments, as well as the ones we made on this topic
in DAG v3 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-string/msg00000.html) on what
was then referred to as comparative evaluation scoring, we noted that ICANN
stated in its Expression of Interest documentation (used to invite
evaluators to do the comparative evaluations) that the document states that
"the scoring process requires that the evaluators exercise considerable
subjective judgment concerning the extent to which each community Applicant
meets or fails to meet the standards defined for each of the four criteria."
Since then, many others have joined in opposition to inordinately rigid
scoring in the face of so much subjectivity.
 
RNA Partner's past comments noted that as long as subjectivity is the basis
for evaluator conclusions, ICANN is compelled to factor in the potential of
an applicant losing a point as a result of simple evaluator error.  We,
along with the Business Constituency (BC), have said that until all
subjectivity has been removed from the process, ICANN's responsibility is to
provide a fair process for applicants - particularly those that have been
classified as 'community-based', which are intended to be given a priority
over standard applicants.  
 
Returning the minimum score needed to demonstrate nexus to a community to a
margin of three points i.e., 13 of 16 (81% score), maintains the necessary
rigor and control of false negatives as well as false positives.
 

We draw ICANN's attention to the BC public comment which notes that "the
Business Constituency has encouraged ICANN to publish its testing methods
and results for community review, [but] no information in this regard has
been forthcoming".  When questioned again about the process staff had used
for testing the community priority evaluation process at the Brussels ICANN
meeting (during the GNSO New gTLD Briefing) Kurt Pritz explained that their
research was in fact "a few of us in a conference room sitting around the
table running tests in a collegial manner, so we cannot reproduce the
research".  On the face of this admission, the BC must insist that the
scoring be reset to a more fair and reasonable level, i.e., 13 of 16
points."

 

RNA Partners, along with the BC, IPC and many others in the ICANN community,
fully support the call to return to 13 of 16 points for the community
priority evaluation scoring in the final Applicant Guidebook.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Ron Andruff
 
RNA Partners, Inc.
 
 
Disclosure: RNA Partners intends to be an applicant for a new gTLD.