<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com" class="">justine.chew@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Rubens, <br class=""><br class=""><i class="">"Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself."</i><br class=""> <br class="">I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I seem to recall that Background Screening (or at least part of that) was undertaken by ICANN staff, but I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf" class="">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party that did background screening. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">In any case, an additional thought has come to mind on Anne's point - I seem to recall that ICANN org may be contemplating moving some of the evaluations in-house. I can't recall which ones exactly but insofar as that is a possibility, would any of the arbiters being considered in Annex, then change? Or are we to keep our recommendations / implementation guidance simply on the basis of what happened for the 2012 round? <br clear="all" class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>I think we should look at future trends, starting with what happened. Considering all my dealings with ICANN Org I was genuinely surprised when they mentioned the possibility of moving some evaluations in-house, but they also mentioned that this would be more in response to a continuing application process, not a round based one. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>So, we would need to look whether the post-transition RfR is now as effective as a redress mechanism as being thought in the limited appeals process. The central issue is whether substantive redress is possible, in order to not have "we followed procedure" responses. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>