Comparitive Evaluation Chart Scoring

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comparison Evaluation Chart and Scoring (Module 4, Section 4.2.3)

 

The current draft text notes that an applicant must score 11 out of 12
points, or 92%, to be declared a clear winner of the string.  This means
that an applicant must score 100% on three of the four established criteria
plus 2 out of 3 possible points on the remaining one.  

 

Clearly, this is an impossibly high threshold of proof - particularly when
the review of an applicant's nexus to a particular community is wholly
subjective, i.e., subject to human fallibility.  A reviewer, a little
uncertain about an applicant's merits on any one of the four criteria - even
though that particular applicant may have clearly demonstrated its nexus to
its community far surpasses all other applicants being compared - may choose
to give 2-point ratings on two of the four criteria.  With a total score of
10-points (3 on two criteria and 2 on the other two criteria) this would
result in that particular applicant, while, again, unquestionably closer to
and more closely supported by their community, failing the comparative
evaluation; forcing all applicants - even those with zero community support
- into an auction.

 

On the one hand, one can understand that ICANN is striving for a methodology
that is "meant to identify a clear winner based on its nexus to the
community" in Kurt Pritz's words, but setting such a high bar could be
construed by many as ICANN's "stocking horse", ultimately designed to drive
all contentious strings to auction.  Auction, as we have often heard
heretofore, has been characterized by ICANN staff as solely "a means of last
resort".  As such, a modification needs to be made to avoid auction.

 

Rather than have comparative applicants - each of which will invest
inordinate amounts of time, human resources and substantial capital in the
hope of gaining the right to manage a TLD from ICANN - be subject to one
reviewer's opinion, ICANN must reconsider the threshold to allow for human
error in judgment.  Ten of twelve points is 83%; nine of twelve is 75% --
either of which could clearly determine one winner over all others.  Should
two applicants both achieve comparative evaluation results of 75% or higher
(something that is nigh impossible statistically) then - and only then -
should the community-based competing applicants move to the auction
procedure.

 

ICANN must award TLDs to legitimate communities over and above all other
applicants.  Therefore, to ensure that that unambiguous principle is
maintained, a more reasonable comparative evaluation point threshold must be
established.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ronald N. Andruff

 

 

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859