Authoritative reference for scoring logic

Scorecard Methodology

version 1.0 · last updated 2026-07-23 · status: authoritative

1. Purpose

This document defines the exact rules for calculating and updating the public risk scorecard for potential re-delegation of the .nz ccTLD away from InternetNZ. All scoring must follow these rules. The scorecard measures formal process risk under the 2016 MoU (clauses 29–35) and RFC 1591 principles only.

2. Core principles

Re-delegation requires clear multi-stakeholder consensus on both:
1. InternetNZ is managing .nz inconsistently with RFC 1591, and
2. A better local manager exists that will manage it consistently with RFC 1591.
Ambient criticism, advocacy disagreement, or membership polarisation alone is insufficient to raise overall risk above Moderate.
Every score must be supported by publicly verifiable evidence. No evidence = score of N/A or Low as appropriate.
The overall score is deliberately conservative and respects the high formal bar.

3. Scoring scale

Only these values are used, for every dimension and the overall score:

Value	Label	Definition
1	Low	No material public evidence of concern against the standard
2	Moderate	Some credible tension or criticism exists, but no formal process steps and limited breadth of community concern
3	Elevated	Credible evidence of inconsistency or significant loss of confidence across multiple stakeholder groups; formal steps possible or early
4	High	Clear evidence meeting the relevant MoU / RFC 1591 threshold; multi-stakeholder process underway or imminent
0	Insufficient evidence	Not enough public information to make a reliable assessment

4. Dimensions and scoring rules

Dimension A — Consistency with RFC 1591 core principles

Weight: High (one of the two required conditions).

Sub-criteria (score each, then take the highest as the Dimension A score):

A1. Equitable treatment in registration, renewal, transfer, and enforcement
A2. Technical competence and operational stability of registry + DNS
A3. Continued adherence to content-neutral / “no concern for use” principle
A4. Manager acting as trustee (not treating the domain as property)

Evidence required: Published .nz Rules, DNCL enforcement data, registry performance reports, documented cases of differential treatment, IANA root zone data, independent technical assessments.

Score 1 if no public evidence of problems.
Score 2 if isolated criticism exists without documented systemic issues.
Score 3 if multiple credible examples of inequitable treatment or clear operational problems exist.
Score 4 only if there is strong evidence of systemic inconsistency with RFC 1591 trustee / equity / competence duties.

Dimension B — Local internet community confidence

Weight: High (supports the “significantly interested parties” and trustee standards).

Evidence required: Membership data, public statements from diverse stakeholder groups, formal complaints, survey results, outcomes of major member votes, breadth of organisations expressing loss of confidence.

Score 1 if broad confidence appears intact.
Score 2 if polarisation exists but significant support remains across major stakeholder groups.
Score 3 if multiple independent stakeholder groups publicly question the manager’s legitimacy.
Score 4 if there is clear evidence of majority or consensus-level loss of confidence across the local Internet community.

Dimension C — MoU formal process status

Weight: Critical (gatekeeper dimension).

Evidence required: Official correspondence from MBIE or other significantly interested parties, public records of meetings, initiation of multi-stakeholder conversation, any formal steps toward IANA.

Score 1 if no formal concerns have been raised under the MoU process.
Score 2 if informal or preliminary discussions have occurred.
Score 3 if formal written concerns have been raised and the response/meeting process is underway.
Score 4 if an open multi-stakeholder conversation seeking clear consensus has been initiated or is in progress.

Dimension D — Transparency & community engagement (MoU clauses 26–27)

Weight: Supporting.

Evidence required: Timeliness of annual reports, publication of Board minutes, public reporting on surplus activities, quality of consultations, evidence of testing broader community views.

Score primarily on delivery against the specific MoU commitments. Isolated delays = 2. Systemic failure to meet published commitments = 3 or 4.

Dimension E — Existence of a credible alternative manager

Weight: High (second required condition).

Evidence required: Public proposals from alternative organisations, demonstrated technical capability, statements of support from a broad range of stakeholders, readiness to accept transfer of register and zones.

Score 1 if no credible alternative has been publicly proposed.
Score 2 if speculative alternatives exist without broad support or readiness.
Score 3 if a specific alternative has been proposed with some stakeholder support and basic capability.
Score 4 only if a ready, competent alternative has clear and broad community support.

5. Overall risk score calculation (strict rules)

Overall risk is calculated using these exact rules, in order:

If Dimension C = 1 → Overall Risk = 1 (Low)
If Dimension E = 1 → Overall Risk cannot exceed 2 (Moderate)
If both Dimension A ≤ 2 and Dimension B ≤ 2 → Overall Risk cannot exceed 2
Overall Risk may only reach 3 (Elevated) if: Dimension C ≥ 2, and (Dimension A ≥ 3 or Dimension B ≥ 3), and Dimension E ≥ 2
Overall Risk may only reach 4 (High) if: Dimension C ≥ 3, and (Dimension A ≥ 3 or Dimension B ≥ 3), and Dimension E ≥ 3, and there is public evidence that a multi-stakeholder conversation seeking clear consensus is underway

Never average the dimensions. The logic above is mandatory. The implementation used by this site is public: score-engine.js, and you can exercise it interactively in the decision machine.

6. Update process

Review at least once per quarter.
Review within 14 days of any material public event (formal MBIE letter, major membership vote, IANA communication, new alternative proposal, etc.).
Every update must record: previous scores, new scores, evidence used (with links or citations), and a short justification for any change.
All historical scores and justifications must remain publicly available.

7. Output format

The live scorecard is published as structured data at data/scorecard.json, in this form:

{
  "version": "1.0",
  "date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
  "dimensions": {
    "A": { "score": 1, "label": "Low", "justification": "...", "evidence": ["url1", "url2"] },
    "B": { "score": 2, "label": "Moderate", "justification": "...", "evidence": [] },
    "C": { "score": 1, "label": "Low", "justification": "...", "evidence": [] },
    "D": { "score": 1, "label": "Low", "justification": "...", "evidence": [] },
    "E": { "score": 1, "label": "Low", "justification": "...", "evidence": [] }
  },
  "overall": {
    "score": 1,
    "label": "Low",
    "justification": "No formal MoU process has been activated. No credible
                      alternative manager has been proposed with broad support."
  }
}