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.
Submissions for this Proceeding
Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)
View this Proceeding
Provide Your Input
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
The RySG believes it is important to highlight that the CPE panel should consider both comments in support and comments in opposition to the application, submitted during the application comment period. Similarly, the CPE panel should observe the Objections process to ensure that formal Objections submitted on an application also factor into the evaluation. This includes introducing an explicit reference to public comments (what is called Comm...
Submission Summary:
The IPC’s position reflects a balance between three equally important imperatives among IPC membership. While it is important respecting the integrity of ICANN's policy development process there is a legitimate need for a CPE framework that is genuinely robust and resistant to abuse - which may be questioned under the current CPE framework laid out in the AGB and specified by the Draft subject to this comment.
The IPC recognises that CPE...
Submission Summary:
Please find attached (PDF) the NCSG Comment on the Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation.
Submission Summary:
Please find attached (PDF) the ALAC Statement on the Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation. Ratification information is included on the cover page.
Kind Regards,
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Submission Summary:
I support the publication of ICANN org’s Draft Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Vendor Evaluation Guide for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round. The guide provides a strong operational foundation by outlining evaluator, vendor, and ICANN roles, and by reinforcing key principles such as objectivity, consistency, transparency, confidentiality, and accountability.
My submission recommends targeted improvements to strengthen fairness, predic...
Submission Summary:
First, the concept of “majority support” lacks a standardized quantitative definition. While the guide allows flexibility in assessing community size and representation, the absence of clear thresholds or metrics may lead to inconsistent interpretations across evaluation panels. Establishing clearer benchmarks—such as percentage thresholds or weighted criteria—would enhance comparability and fairness.
Second, the reliance on “limited ind...
Submission Summary:
Thank you for publishing this draft for public input. The guide is well-structured overall and provides useful clarity on the evaluation process. I offer a few general observations that may help strengthen the final version.
It would be helpful to ensure that the scoring rubrics in the guide are fully consistent with those in the Applicant Guidebook, so that applicants and panelists are working from the same framework.
<...
Submission Summary:
The draft Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Vendor Evaluation Guide is a well-structured and comprehensive document that meaningfully enhances clarity, consistency, and transparency in the evaluation process. It effectively complements the Applicant Guidebook by translating high-level criteria into operational guidance for evaluators, particularly through detailed scoring rubrics, defined roles, and documentation requirement...
Submission Summary:
This submission offers observations on the draft CPE Vendor Evaluation Guide from a researcher with active engagement in ICANN's capacity development programmes and sustained interest in how evaluation processes affect multilingual and community-based applicants in the 2026 Round.
On the evaluation criteria overall, the guide is clearly structured and the scoring rubrics provide useful operational clarity for panels. The distinction betw...
Submission Summary:
I welcomes the development of the draft CPE Evaluation Guide as an important step toward improving transparency and consistency in Community Priority Evaluations for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round. However, given the critical role of CPE in contention resolution, the guide would benefit from further strengthening in several areas. Key recommendations include enhancing objectivity by introducing clearer measurable benchmarks and illustrative ...
Submission Summary:
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...