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 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
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From:
Sent: 2009-11-12 13:51
To:
Subject: [bc-gnso]
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