Summary

  • The supplied sources place CPE in Module 5 as a criterion-based contention-resolution evaluation.
  • An applicant can prepare and document its evidence; the supplied sources do not establish the panel’s eventual judgment.

The document-handling practices below are BTW editorial recommendations for auditability; they are not stated ICANN requirements. The phrase “not a popularity contest” is BTW’s editorial shorthand, not wording in the supplied ICANN sources. Those sources place CPE in Module 5 and provide the evaluation-guide resources; they do not describe informal panel voting or establish which application follows a particular procedural path. Within that evidence boundary, the volume of public support should not be treated by an applicant as proof that the published criteria have been met.

That distinction changes how an applicant should prepare. The useful question is not “How many endorsements can we collect?” It is “What verifiable record connects the claimed community, the proposed string and the application’s commitments to the published criteria?”

The evaluation sits inside contention resolution

ICANN’s 2026 Applicant Guidebook places CPE in Module 5, alongside other contention-resolution procedures. The supplied sources establish that placement, but do not by themselves establish a contracting, delegation or application outcome.

The evidence used here does not establish who selects a particular procedural path or what consequences follow after CPE. Those questions require their own applicable ICANN sources and an application-specific record.

Build a criterion-linked evidence file

ICANN announced the updated final evaluation guide for the 2026 Round on 24 June 2026, after a public-comment process, and published it together with panel process and procedures developed by the CPE vendor. Those documents define the proper frame for preparation.

An applicant should create an evidence index that links each material assertion to a source, owner and date. Definitions should be consistent across the application, supporting documents and public statements. Letters should identify the author’s authority and the basis of the author’s knowledge. Organisational records should show what they actually establish rather than being presented as self-proving attachments.

The file should also distinguish three things that are often blurred: an assertion made by the applicant, corroboration supplied by an independent source, and the panel’s eventual judgement. The first two can be prepared and audited. The third cannot be promised in advance.