Logo
ICANN
ICANN
Filtered Search

Are you sure you want to sign out from https://www.icann.org?

If you want to sign out from both https://www.icann.org and ICANN Account, click here.

Public Comment

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.

本内容仅提供以下语言版本

  • English

Name: Dorothy Gordon
Date: 23 Jul 2025
Affiliation: NCSG
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: Final Proceeding for Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook (AGB)
4) Is the language in draft Module 4: Contention Set Resolution consistent with Board-approved recommendations, and are the concepts introduced therein consistent across the AGB? Please note that comments should be made on issues that have not been previously addressed via Public Comment or in discussions with the IRT.
No

If no, please explain

As a participant in ICANN processes for well over a decade, I am very concerned by the changes I see reflected in the new CPE Scoring system as reflected in Section 4. “Community Priority Evaluation” and specifically Section 4.4.7 “Community Priority Evaluation Criteria” These changes are not the result of a public comment and are in conflict with the spirit of the original document and policy. It is clear that they will impact negatively on communities, tribes, NGOs and indigenous people around the world including in my country, Ghana. __________________________ Specifically Section 4.4.7 is now worded in such away as to make it impossible for CPE panelists to engage fully in research and application of their background knowledge. The new wording removes prior requirements to fully take into account external opposition and any comments they might receive.  The changes limit fact checking to information provided by the applicant. The result would be that those who apply first would have an unfair advantage. This could result in misappropriation of names.  Further those who make applications now have the right to define ‘majority’. This is just a sample of the 'wrongness' of the new language. It is imperative that these revisions are not adopted and are reversed.