Dear all, In Mike's posting of the Draft BC comments, he asked a question of me in the section__. My response is noted below. You will see I am looking for some assistance in refining the language that gets the message across more clearly. Revised Comparative Evaluation Scoring The Business Constituency welcomes the opportunity to comment on Draft Applicant Guidebook v3 and draws ICANN's attention to an inequity in the comparative evaluation scoring. Background The Expressions of Interest documentation created by ICANN to recruit evaluators clearly states that the comparative evaluation section will require a high degree of subjectivity; but, at the same time, ICANN does not allow for any subjectivity failure on the part of the reviewer. [Ron, please elaborate on this, I have read it a couple times, edited below, and still do not see enough logic in it. Is it typical for independent reviews to have lower thresholds for passing, to account for subjectivity? Can we point to some examples?] What I am trying to get at, but having difficulty expressing is the following: An individual is tasked with doing what all agree is a highly subjective review. By tight scoring, ICANN expects that this individual will do a 'perfect' job determining highly subjective positions? What if he has a strong argument with his wife that day or he is in ill health - in either case not thinking clearly - but he nonetheless takes 'highly subjective' decisions that day. Should we deem fair a system that does not allow one point of failure for the individual doing the review? Is it not possible that he may not be thinking 100% clearly? By experience, I know that individuals, despite the facts being otherwise, may make a decision completely contrary to what all others agree is so. With only two points of failure, i.e., a 87% score to prove nexus, the window of subjective scoring is too tight and unfair to applicants. Three points of failure at least allows for the reviewer to have a 'bad day' and ensure that that 'bad day' does not crush an applicant that otherwise proves nexus in every way. We need a larger window. Thirteen of sixteen is 81%. Thanks in advance to anyone who can add the needed clarity. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 2009-11-12 13:51 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3 Hi all, With many thanks to Ron Andruff, David Fares and Zahid Jamil for their inputs thus far, here is a DRAFT of BC comments to be submitted by the comment deadline of Nov. 22 if possible. Please indicate any objections, questions, suggested edits or adds, etc. ASAP. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>