Dear Working Group members, A few additional items not contained in the deliberation section of Community Applications that were raised in the WT3 discussions. 1. Concerns about processes described in the AGB and the CPE Guidelines that were not adhered to by the CPE Providers, or were not adhered to as strictly as the language provided for in published materials: a. Verification of support/opposition letters - all were to require verified, many were not verified without reason b. Party responsible for verification letters - was described by the CPE Provider in their own guidelines as a responsibility of one of the two CPE panelists, but actually done by CPE support staff 2. Concerns about the lack of oversight during CPE which resulted in poor performance of the CPE Providers: a. Verification emails were sent to endorsing organizations that contained response date requirements that had already expired. When reported to ICANN, no email correction was sent to the effected parties and ICANN instructed applicant to carry the burden of informing endorsing organizations to respond to emails anyway, despite the expired due date b. CPE Providers falling short on letter verification duties I believe these are important points to include from our deliberations given that every applicant should at minimum feel assured that their application is be handled with the utmost care and respect for the described procedures, without exception or alternative interpretation. Otherwise the words of the published materials mean nothing, lacking predictability and transparency. Much thanks Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> jamie@dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/> www.dotgay.com A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> www.facebook.dotgay.com and follow us at <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> www.twitter.com/dotgay --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus