Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>, Jamie Baxter <Jamie@dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61A6A.7D647740] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie@dotgay.com) <jamie@dotgay.com> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards 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@01D61A6A.7D647740] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61A6A.7D647740] 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.
Thanks Jamie. I don’t think the CPE scoring system that we are supposed to be modifying for use in the next round is geared to only the verification of applicant statements. The scoring system goes to applicant’s community status. You might want to check that document again to see if there are edits you would like to make to the scoring language. On the second point, I think that goes to the question of the weight of the evidence and that is a question relative to the standard on appeal. It’s one of the reasons I was trying to be careful about how to measure the“clearly erroneous” standard for appeal., i.e. panelist failed to consider material evidence. We could potentially say “evaluator failed to consider and/or accord proper weight to material evidence”? Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie 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: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61A53.C9982F10] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 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>>; 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards 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@01D61A53.C9982F10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61A53.C9982F10] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Hey Anne I have spent some time thinking about this and I think the edit you provided to Paul’s original text would suffice. It’s not to say I won’t continue to be uneasy with the notion of evaluator advocacy going forward, especially in cases when its counter-intuitive to the larger interests of the community being evaluated. Ensuring a more transparent CPE process and holding evaluators accountable is the key to improvement, and it appears that is the direction this PDP group is moving in. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:17 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Thanks Jamie. I don’t think the CPE scoring system that we are supposed to be modifying for use in the next round is geared to only the verification of applicant statements. The scoring system goes to applicant’s community status. You might want to check that document again to see if there are edits you would like to make to the scoring language. On the second point, I think that goes to the question of the weight of the evidence and that is a question relative to the standard on appeal. It’s one of the reasons I was trying to be careful about how to measure the“clearly erroneous” standard for appeal., i.e. panelist failed to consider material evidence. We could potentially say “evaluator failed to consider and/or accord proper weight to material evidence”? Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie 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: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61ED5.A9036E50] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 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>>; 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards 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@01D61ED5.A9036E50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61ED5.A9036E50] 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. ________________________________ 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 Jamie. Subject to further comment from the full WG, I think this is where we are as to AGB language: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:57 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I have spent some time thinking about this and I think the edit you provided to Paul’s original text would suffice. It’s not to say I won’t continue to be uneasy with the notion of evaluator advocacy going forward, especially in cases when its counter-intuitive to the larger interests of the community being evaluated. Ensuring a more transparent CPE process and holding evaluators accountable is the key to improvement, and it appears that is the direction this PDP group is moving in. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:17 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>)" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Thanks Jamie. I don’t think the CPE scoring system that we are supposed to be modifying for use in the next round is geared to only the verification of applicant statements. The scoring system goes to applicant’s community status. You might want to check that document again to see if there are edits you would like to make to the scoring language. On the second point, I think that goes to the question of the weight of the evidence and that is a question relative to the standard on appeal. It’s one of the reasons I was trying to be careful about how to measure the“clearly erroneous” standard for appeal., i.e. panelist failed to consider material evidence. We could potentially say “evaluator failed to consider and/or accord proper weight to material evidence”? Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie 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: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61ED5.A5649CB0] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 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>>; 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards 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@01D61ED5.A5649CB0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61ED5.A5649CB0] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Good afternoon: I have some concert as to how these proposals could be implemented in practice. Clearly, accountability and transparency of evaluation and evaluators is necessary. However, trying to draw distinctions between information known previously to the evaluators, information included in the application and information, however acquired, during the evaluation - these distinctions seem to be unworkable, particularly as the evaluators themselves are supposed to be knowledgeable and expert in their fields. Who is to undertake such distinctions and for what purpose? One would expect the evaluators to undertake professional research that they considered necessary. Regards CW
El 30 de abril de 2020 a las 18:57 "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> escribió:
Thanks Jamie. Subject to further comment from the full WG, I think this is where we are as to AGB language:
“deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.”
Anne
From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:57 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
[EXTERNAL]
---------------------------------------------
Hey Anne
I have spent some time thinking about this and I think the edit you provided to Paul’s original text would suffice. It’s not to say I won’t continue to be uneasy with the notion of evaluator advocacy going forward, especially in cases when its counter-intuitive to the larger interests of the community being evaluated. Ensuring a more transparent CPE process and holding evaluators accountable is the key to improvement, and it appears that is the direction this PDP group is moving in.
Jamie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com > Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:17 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com >, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org > Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au )" <cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au >, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
Thanks Jamie. I don’t think the CPE scoring system that we are supposed to be modifying for use in the next round is geared to only the verification of applicant statements. The scoring system goes to applicant’s community status. You might want to check that document again to see if there are edits you would like to make to the scoring language.
On the second point, I think that goes to the question of the weight of the evidence and that is a question relative to the standard on appeal. It’s one of the reasons I was trying to be careful about how to measure the“clearly erroneous” standard for appeal., i.e. panelist failed to consider material evidence. We could potentially say “evaluator failed to consider and/or accord proper weight to material evidence”?
Anne
From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com >; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au ) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
[EXTERNAL]
---------------------------------------------
Hey Paul & Anne
I think both your edits are improvements.
Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy.
I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions.
Thanks
Jamie
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: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org > 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 > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
Paul,
I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.”
I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research.
Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator?
Thank you,
Anne
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com >; 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 >; 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
[EXTERNAL]
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Anne.
I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about:
“deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.”
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Best,
Paul
To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe . For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit anytime.
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org ; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com > 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: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
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
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com http://lrrc.com/
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.
---------------------------------------------
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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jamie Baxter -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW