Misappropriation of our Community names ahead in new version of AGB Community Priority Evaluation

[Kathy Kleiman]

      All,


      I share my post yesterday in CircleID. If you read it and are
      concerned, then if you/your organization could write a very short
      comment (in addition to our NCSG comment), it will make a big
      difference as we debate this issue in the Implementation Review
      Team after the comments close.


      Best and tx, Kathy


      An Open Letter to the ICANN Community: Not the Community Priority
      Evaluation We Intended
      <https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended>



	By *Kathy Kleiman* <https://circleid.com/members/1624> American 
University Washington College of Law

  * July 21, 2025
  * Views: 309
  * Comments: 1
    <https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#comments>

	

To the ICANN Community,

Today, I share a warning about serious changes to the Community Priority 
Evaluation (CPE) of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. They are not 
driven by public comment, but by a few voices within the SubPro 
Implementation Review Team—and they are very likely to lead to 
disastrous misappropriation of well-known community names, including 
those of Tribes, Indigenous Peoples and NGOs around the world.

The reason why is that we (the ICANN Community) envisioned.CHEROKEE for 
the Cherokee Nation and other tribes, peoples and NGOs, not a group that 
loves their Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee cars and jeeps. /But the 
policy written by the SubPro PDP Working Group (2016-2020) and accepted 
by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board recently was deeply changed—and 
replaced with a scoring system that eliminates the ability of well-known 
communities to stop unrelated groups, or a fraction of their community, 
or a group completely opposed to them from using the same name as a new 
gTLD, provided the applicant has some semblance of internal organization 
and activity*. This change will result in the misappropriation of 
well-known community names and great harm that we never intended when we 
wrote the policy.*/

The Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (meeting 2016-2020) was 
fairly balanced in its recommendations for both the applicant and 
communities that might oppose the CPE application. I share some of the 
language showing the independence of the Community Experts on the CPE 
panel to research and other communities and tribes to send comments and 
letters of opposition and raise concerns—all to be taken into account in 
the CPE evaluation. /Final Report, 2020/^1 
<https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn1> 
.

Unfortunately and very recently, a few members of the SubPro 
Implementation Review Team (“IRT”), a group charged with implementing 
policy, not rewriting it, made change after change to the language, 
terms and scoring of the Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) rules. In 
April, they stripped out carefully negotiated policies and balances to 
create an unfair advance for applicants—including by new rules telling 
the CPE Panelists to greatly limit the use their expertise and 
independent research skills and not to weigh heavily external opposition 
and comments they may receive.

*The changes are buried in Module 4: Contention Set Resolution, 4.4 
Community Priority Evaluation, pages 133-150, of the final draft of the 
Applicant Guidebook now out for public comment.^2 
<https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn2> 
*

/If you look at the new CPE scoring system—called Community Priority 
Evaluation Criteria (Section 4.4.7, p.139 in draft AGB)—in the edited 
versions (“redlines” that I share from the IRT on April 14, 2025^3 
<https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn3> 
, and April 30, 2025^4 
<https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn4> 
, and a special redline combining both sets of edits that I created^5 
<https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn5> 
), you will see the hands of the CPE Panelists are newly “tied” and they 
cannot engage in the research and application of their knowledge that 
the adopted policy requires./ Sadly, under the new changes:

  * Fact-checking is limited solely to “information provided by the
    applicant”—see /Combined Version/^4
    <https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended#fn4>
    , footnote 11, page (effectively barring the Panelists from reaching
    out into the real world for context, background, and investigation
    of other communities and tribes with the same name).
  * “Majority ” is now defined only by the applicant—“according to the
    size of the identified community of the applicant” (Combined
    Version, footnote 7, page 5)—and not according to the size of the
    much larger community, tribe or people that also may be associated
    with the name (and for a much longer period of time).
  * Scoring (CPE Evaluation) now ranks the Applicant’s view of itself
    much higher than the rest of the world’s view of it. /“Established
    Presence,” meant to be an external check, was recently rewritten to
    require applicant only to demonstrate “an external awareness of the
    identified community…prior to the opening of the application
    submission period.”/ But you can be aware of a group and not agree
    they are the right representative of a community’s name.
  * Similarly, while “Nexus” should provide balance, here too the
    scoring weights what the applicant believes, not what the world knows.

And these are just a few examples. Under this new language—newly shared 
with the community and not arising from public comment—self-identified 
communities will win CPE. What a prize for the applicant (no auction) 
and what a tragedy for the peoples, tribes and NGOs of the same name and 
for far longer than the applicant!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

/Overall, if these rules are adopted, we can predict that letters and 
comments of heartfelt opposition against CPE applicants will pour into 
ICANN, only to be systematically ignored by the Panel because of these 
recent changes to scoring and evaluation criteria. /As shared above, 
this April editing came not from accepted policy, but from a few strong 
voices on the SubPro IRT.

*/I fear disastrous misappropriation of the well-known names of peoples, 
tribes and communities if recent changes to CEP text and scoring are not 
reversed, and the original language is not restored./*

*/If you agree, I ask you to write a small set of comments—and share you 
how to do it below—as it will make a different./*

*/Thank you for reading and caring,/*

*/Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency/*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*To Submit a Comment in ICANN’s Open Proceeding on the Final Draft of 
the Applicant Guidebook, due July 23^rd . *

 1. Go to the public comment link for this proceeding,
    [https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/final-proceeding-for-proposed-language-for-the-draft-next-round-applicant-guidebook-agb-30-05-2025]
 2. Hit “Provide your Input” (if you never done this before, you will
    need to use your ICANN account and password (the one for meeting
    registrations)—or create a new account).
 3. Under INSTRUCTIONS, go to the Fourth Question: */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./ * Choose “No,” and then
    explain your concerns and reasoning. Referencing/Section 4.4
    “Community Priority Evaluation”/ or /Section 4.4.7 “Community
    Priority Evaluation Criteria/” will be useful to the report writers.
 4. *Then hit “Publish.”*

Thank you!

[Endnotes and links on the CircleID post at 
https://circleid.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250722/3ae8f73f/attachment.htm>