Community Priority Evaluation Panel

Organization
Type	Public-private partnership
Focus	gTLD contention resolution; community priority evaluation
Founded	July 31, 2009
Founders	ICANN
Ownership	ICANN
Websites	newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe

Community Priority Evaluation Panel, previously called Comparative Evaluation Panel were formed to check applications for new gTLDs against the criteria published in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) to determine if the application warrants the minimum score of 14 points (out of a maximum of 16 points) to earn priority and thus win the contention set.

Only community-based applicants were eligible to participate in a community priority evaluation. Also, a determination by the panel appointed by ICANN was required for a community name to be awarded to an applicant. This determination was based on the string and the completeness and validity of supporting documentation.

There were two possible outcomes to a Community Priority Evaluation (CPE):

• Determination that the application met the CPE requirements specified in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 4.2.2) to receive priority over other applications for the same or confusingly similar string = Prevailed.
• Determination that the application did not meet the CPE requirements specified in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 4.2.2) to receive priority over other applications for the same or confusingly similar string = Did not prevail.

As section 4.2.2 of the AGB prescribes that the Community Priority Evaluations would be conducted by an independent panel, ICANN selected the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as the panel firm for Community Priority Evaluations. The EIU is the business information arm of The Economist Group, publisher of The Economist.

Evaluators and Core Team

The CPE panel comprises a core team, in addition to several independent evaluators. The core team comprises a Project Manager, who oversees the Community Priority Evaluation project, a Project Coordinator, who is in charge of the day-to-day management of the project and provides guidance to the independent evaluators, and other senior staff members, including The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Executive Editor and Global Director of Public Policy. Together, this team assesses the evaluation results. Each application is assessed by seven individuals: two independent evaluators, and the core team, which comprises five people.

CPE Evaluation Process

The EIU evaluates applications for gTLDs once they become eligible for review under CPE. The evaluation process as described in section 4.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and discussed in the CPE Guidelines document is described below:

• The Panel Firm’s Project Manager is notified by ICANN that an application for a gTLD is ready for CPE, and the application ID and public comments are delivered to the EIU. The EIU is responsible for gathering the application materials and other documentation, including letter(s) of support and relevant correspondence, from the public ICANN website. The EIU Project Manager reviews the application and associated materials, in conjunction with the EIU Project Coordinator. The Project Coordinator assigns the application to each of two evaluators, who work independently to assess and score the application.

• Each evaluator reviews the application and accompanying documentation, such as letter(s) of support and opposition. Based on this information and additional independent research, the evaluators assign scores to the four CPE criteria as defined in the Applicant Guidebook.

• As part of this process, one of the two evaluators assigned to assess the same string is asked to verify the letters of support and opposition.

• When evaluating an application the CPE Panel also considers the public application comments. The public comments are provided to EIU by ICANN following the close of the 14-day window associated with the CPE invitation. For every comment of support/opposition received, the designated evaluator assesses the relevance of the organization of the poster along with the content of the comment. A separate

verification of the comment author is not performed as the Application Comments system requires that users register themselves with an active email account before they are allowed to post any comments. However, the evaluator will check the affiliated website to ascertain if the person sending the comment(s) is at that entity/organization named, unless the comment has been sent in an individual capacity.

• Once the two evaluators have completed this process, the evaluation results are reviewed by the Project Coordinator, who checks them for completeness and consistency with the procedures of the Applicant Guidebook.

• If the two evaluators disagree on one or more of the scores, the Project Coordinator mediates and works to achieve consensus, where possible.

• The Project Director and Project Coordinator, along with other members of the core team, meet to discuss the evaluators’ results and to verify compliance with the Applicant Guidebook. Justifications for the scores are further refined and articulated in this phase.

• If the core team so decides, additional research may be carried out to answer questions that arise during the review, especially as they pertain to the qualitative aspects of the Applicant Guidebook scoring procedures.

• If the core team so decides, the EIU may provide a clarifying question (CQ) to be issued via ICANN to the applicant to clarify statements in the application materials and/or to inform the applicant that letter(s) of support could not be verified.

• When the core team achieves consensus on the scores for each application, an explanation, or justification, for each score is prepared. A final document with all scores and justifications for a given application, including a determination of whether the application earned the requisite 14 points for prevailing, is presented to ICANN.

• The Economist Intelligence Unit works with ICANN when questions arise or when additional process information may be required to evaluate an application.

• The Panel Firm exercises consistent judgment in making its evaluations in order to reach conclusions that are compelling and defensible, and documents the way in which it has done so in each case.

Generic Top-level Domain

Generic Top-level Domain