Community Priority Evaluation 2 dot0 Will Rules Become Stricter

The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process was one of the most scrutinized and consequential mechanisms introduced in the 2012 round of new gTLD applications. Intended to give a clear pathway for genuine community-based applicants to prevail over purely commercial contenders in contention sets, CPE aimed to promote diversity, serve underserved user groups, and recognize the legitimacy of organized, mission-driven entities. However, in practice, the process proved far more complex, controversial, and opaque than anticipated. With the next application round on the horizon, the future of CPE is under active reconsideration, and key voices within ICANN’s stakeholder ecosystem are pressing for a revised model—one that may well come with stricter, more precisely defined rules and evaluation criteria.

In its original form, the CPE framework required applicants to score at least 14 out of 16 possible points across four main criteria: community establishment, nexus between the proposed string and the community, registration policies, and community endorsement. Each of these criteria was further subdivided, with detailed scoring guidance administered by independent evaluators, originally contracted through the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Despite this structure, the process drew heavy criticism for its perceived inconsistency, lack of transparency, and susceptibility to subjective interpretation. Many applicants who believed they met the threshold for community status failed to secure enough points, often by narrow margins, sparking multiple reconsideration requests and accountability mechanisms. In high-profile cases like .music, .gay, and .eco, applicants and observers alike questioned whether the evaluators fully understood the nature of the communities they were assessing or the scope of their global relevance.

One of the most persistent critiques was that the evidentiary standard required to demonstrate a “clearly delineated” community was far higher than anticipated, particularly for globally distributed or loosely affiliated interest groups. Applicants representing cause-based movements, language communities, or decentralized professional networks often struggled to meet the threshold for “organization” as defined under the rules. In response, many have called for a revised version of CPE—sometimes referred to informally as CPE 2.0—that clarifies eligibility criteria, raises transparency standards, and introduces a more rigorous but fair evaluative structure. The central tension is whether making the rules stricter would lead to greater integrity and trust in the process, or whether it would inadvertently exclude legitimate community actors who do not fit a narrow bureaucratic mold.

As the ICANN community debates the CPE redesign, there is growing momentum to adopt a clearer and more legally robust definition of what constitutes a “community.” Under proposed changes, applicants might be required to demonstrate a legally recognized organizational structure with a minimum number of members, formal decision-making processes, and ongoing engagement activities. This would favor applicants such as trade associations, professional guilds, or culturally defined collectives with established governance. However, such a shift may make it more difficult for aspirational or emergent communities—such as regional activist networks, digitally native movements, or coalitions formed specifically for the TLD application—to qualify. Critics of a stricter approach warn that this could further entrench institutional privilege, rewarding those with the financial and organizational capacity to meet new procedural thresholds while excluding marginalized voices.

Another area of proposed tightening is the nexus test, which evaluates how closely the proposed TLD string corresponds to the name, identity, or descriptor of the applicant’s community. In past evaluations, applicants lost critical points due to perceived ambiguity in string meaning or because evaluators determined the term could apply to multiple groups beyond the applicant’s constituency. Under a stricter regime, applicants might be required to show not only semantic alignment but also exclusive or near-exclusive identification with the string. This would likely reduce the number of successful CPE claims but would also address a key concern raised in the 2012 round—namely, that the nexus criterion was too easily gamed by commercial actors seeking to reframe their bid as a community application to bypass auctions.

Endorsement requirements are also under review. CPE 2.0 may place heavier emphasis on the quality, breadth, and independence of support letters from recognized institutions and subject matter authorities. While the original CPE model did include an evaluation of endorsement legitimacy, it lacked a mechanism for weighing letters from neutral or high-level authorities more heavily than from minor or affiliated entities. Future revisions might formalize tiers of credibility, or even establish a registry of pre-validated endorsing bodies for specific sectors, such as healthcare, indigenous rights, or language preservation. This could help eliminate token endorsements and reinforce the legitimacy of applications that truly represent a global or multi-stakeholder consensus.

Procedurally, transparency and accountability will likely improve in the next round. One of the most common complaints during the 2012 cycle was that CPE evaluations were conducted behind closed doors, with minimal disclosure of rationale or scoring justifications. Moving forward, it is expected that evaluators will be required to publish full scoring matrices, detailed commentary on point deductions, and potentially even provide applicants with a rebuttal opportunity prior to final scoring. There is also discussion around the use of advisory panels composed of subject matter experts to complement technical evaluators, particularly in applications involving cultural, linguistic, or identity-based communities. These panels could help mitigate past issues where evaluators lacked contextual knowledge about the nuances of the communities being reviewed.

The potential introduction of appealable decisions—distinct from ICANN’s traditional accountability mechanisms—could further enhance fairness in CPE 2.0. Currently, unsuccessful applicants have limited recourse, typically resorting to the ICANN Board Reconsideration Process or an Independent Review Process (IRP), both of which are slow, expensive, and procedurally complex. A dedicated appeal track for CPE evaluations, possibly modeled on dispute resolution procedures, could offer a faster, more accessible path for applicants to contest perceived errors or inconsistencies.

The stakes are high. If the CPE framework becomes too restrictive, it may deter legitimate community applicants from even attempting to apply in the next round. If it remains too lenient or inconsistent, it may once again be viewed as a loophole exploited by sophisticated actors for strategic advantage. ICANN’s challenge will be to recalibrate the balance—tightening standards to prevent abuse while maintaining pathways for authentic, emergent, and globally relevant communities to succeed. As the community prepares for a long-anticipated new gTLD round, the fate of CPE 2.0 will be a bellwether for how inclusive, competitive, and trustworthy the application process can truly become.

The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process was one of the most scrutinized and consequential mechanisms introduced in the 2012 round of new gTLD applications. Intended to give a clear pathway for genuine community-based applicants to prevail over purely commercial contenders in contention sets, CPE aimed to promote diversity, serve underserved user groups, and recognize the…