<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just some personal observations about Anne’s comment on Requests for Reconsideration vs. Appeals. I do not agree with Anne that simple appeals of evaluation results or dispute results would be the proper subject for Requests for Reconsideration.
The Board can always argue that it relied on the judgement of the evaluators and therefore was “reasonable” in either adopting the evaluator or dispute providers decisions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But even for arguments sake, lets say Anne is right that these can be subject to RfRs. RFRs are considered by the ICANN Board. Most of the ICANN Board members (if not all) have day jobs and cannot work on ICANN activities 100% of their
time. Moreover, they are not experts or specialists in every element of the new gTLD Program.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So lets say you fail the technical evaluation because the ICANN outside contractor evaluator (who presumably knows about registry operations, hardware software, EPP Protocols, RDAP, technology security plans, redundancy, server farms, DNS,
DNSSEC, etc). And lets assume that you failed the evaluation because you did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of RFCs
<span style="color:black">034, 1035, 1123, 1982, 2181, 2182, 3226, 3596, 3597, 4343, 5966 and 6891, or EPP RFCs 5910, 5730, 5731, 5732 (if using host objects), 5733 and 5734. Do you really believe that these appeals should go to the ICANN Board? Perhaps
one or two Board members understand what that means, but the others? Why would we burden the ICANN Board with those types of decisions?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Senior Vice President <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Com Laude | Valideus</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">D: +1.703.635.7514<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">E:
</span><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Justine Chew<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Rubens,<br>
<br>
As I said, I was not entirely sure it was correct, and I now stand corrected, thanks. And I agree on the focus being the need for substantive review, which a RfR may indeed not be well-suited to achieve. <br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Justine<br>
---<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:57, Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank">rubensk@nic.br</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com" target="_blank">justine.chew@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rubens, <br>
<br>
<i>"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>
<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party that did background screening. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
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">
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rubens<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the
sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company
registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30
Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus
USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see
<a href="https://comlaude.com" target="_blank">www.comlaude.com</a>
</body>
</html>