Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com)" <jamie@dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61810.BFB4F860] Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com) <jamie@dotgay.com> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61810.BFB4F860] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY...> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61810.BFB4F860] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Emily. Yes – I had previously added some other comments to the CPE Guidelines. At your invitation, I went back in and added the statement below to the Guidelines. (Firm guidelines do not permit signing in to Google docs and had some trouble with the form so we may need to check it against the language in red below.) More importantly, I note that the CPE Guidelines specifically state that they are NOT intended to broaden or narrow the scope of the AGB provisions, so it’s possible we have to state the following in the AGB itself: “In applying these scoring guidelines and as further described in the AGB, evaluators may rely on independent research deemed necessary to accurately complete the scoring process, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Also relevant is the section in the CPE Guidelines regarding Verification of Support Letters. I guess we can discuss verification generally whenever we discuss the CPE Section and the Guidelines. Thank you, Anne From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>; Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com) <jamie@dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>)" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>)" <jamie@dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61899.2E1A8080] Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie@dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61899.2E1A8080] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY...> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61899.2E1A8080] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (2)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Emily Barabas