Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Ce contenu est uniquement disponible en
The draft guide is well structured and clearly improves transparency compared to previous approaches. The emphasis on documented evidence, defined scoring criteria, and accountability is a strong step forward.
However, there are still areas that may lead to inconsistent outcomes across evaluations. Several criteria, particularly under community establishment and endorsement, rely heavily on qualitative judgment. Concepts such as “awareness”, “engagement”, and “majority support” are not always measurable in a consistent way across different types of communities, especially when comparing global, regional, and niche groups.
The use of limited independent research by evaluators is understandable, but it introduces a risk of inconsistency depending on how different evaluators interpret external information. More structured guidance on what constitutes acceptable external validation would improve reliability.
In addition, the definition of community boundaries and size appears to depend largely on the applicant’s framing. This can directly influence scoring, especially in determining majority support or opposition. Clearer standardization or validation mechanisms would help reduce the risk of manipulation.
Finally, some binary scoring elements, such as registration policies, may not fully capture the quality or effectiveness of proposed controls. Introducing more granular evaluation in these areas could strengthen the overall assessment.
Overall, the guide is a solid foundation, but tightening consistency, reducing subjectivity, and strengthening validation mechanisms would significantly improve fairness and trust in the evaluation process.
This submission supports the overall direction of the draft CPE Evaluation Guide, particularly its focus on transparency, structured scoring, and accountability. However, it highlights concerns around subjectivity in key evaluation criteria, potential inconsistencies arising from independent research, and the lack of standardized methods for defining community boundaries and majority support. Strengthening these areas would improve consistency, reduce ambiguity, and enhance confidence in the evaluation outcomes.