[Gnso-newgtld-wg] 1.9 - Community Applications

Jamie Baxter jamie at dotgay.com
Thu Jun 14 11:20:43 UTC 2018


Good morning Kavouss,

 

I am not sure I understand your response, however what I can assure you of is:

 

1.     As a community applicant, these comments represent our experience in CPE

2.     What I have shared are facts, supported by evidence

3.     I raised these concerns within WT3 deliberations and therefore believe they should be reflected in the report

 

If this group is tasked with examining how CPE was delivered in the 2012 round and how policy may need to be adjusted in future rounds to fix problems, then it seems necessary to include the points I am raising. I suspect some would find that the standards required of CPE Providers when interpreting AGB and CPE Guidelines language to be in deep conflict with the standards those same evaluators used to scrutinize community applications as applicants made best efforts to interpret undefined words and language in those same documents when constructing their applications. 

 

If the words and language of the AGB and CPE Guidelines will continue to be as relevant to the evaluation process going forward, then it is only fair that those doing the evaluation respect the same words and language with as much precision. Ambiguity in the materials cannot be used against an applicant when clarity in those same materials is being dismissed or ignored by the evaluators, especially when the result is one party being forced into auction and the other walking away with thousands of dollars in compensation fees. 

 

I hope this helps.

Jamie

 

 

From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:54 AM
To: Jamie Baxter
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 1.9 - Community Applications

 

Jamie 

The amount if I formation and their diversities are unmanageable to those really involved

We are talking out I’d scope 

Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone


On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:56, Jamie Baxter <jamie at dotgay.com> wrote:

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

jamie at dotgay.com

www.dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/> 

 

A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)

 

Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> 

and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay

 

 

 


 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> 

Virus-free.  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> www.avast.com 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180614/1369578c/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list