[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report

[Rubens Kuhl]

The attached email was about call #21, Registry Services, as I mentioned before, not about Aggregated Evaluation. And that's exactly what drove the registry services outcome that was discussed in San Juan and later published in the report.

So, I still don't see any evidence of anyone besides you making that point on aggregated technical (or financial) evaluation.



Rubens


> On 19 Jun 2018, at 21:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> In order to refresh your memory, please see attached email with references to the specific minute of the mp3 recording for each issue.
> 
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
> _____________________________
> <image003.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
> 
> 
> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:14 PM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Jun 2018, at 20:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
> 
> Rubens,
> 
> See comments inline.  If these issues are not raised in the Initial Report, the discussions that occurred in Work Track 4 are not accurately reflected.  (See especially the mp3 of the November 30 call and my follow up emails in January and February citing to the exact minute of the mp3 recording.)
> 
> Anne, while you are focused on the report, I referred to the actual substantive discussions in WT4. I'll let staff and co-chairs answer anything related to the report, which was not the focus of my responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.       Disclosure of New Services at the Time of Application.  Regarding the portion of the draft report that deals with disclosure of new services at the time of application,  Question 23 of the existing application requires that all new services proposed be described, including any security and stability issues that may be associated with that.   The initial draft report skipped over this issue that was clearly raised in Work Track 4 and talked about the flexibility to propose new services either at the application stage or later on in the RSEP process (even if known at the time of application).    As mentioned, there are “trade-offs” here in relation to opportunities for Objections and Evaluations and these should be highlighted for public comment.
> 
> Actually, it is quite the opposite. What is said there is that applicants would be able to disclose services at application time even if not submitting them to evaluation, increasing opportunity for Objections.   There is no point in arguing this difference of opinion further.   The 2012 round application Question 23 REQUIRES disclosure of all services at the time of application.  This is not optional “would be able” disclosure.  That’s why the draft does not reflect the discussion in Work Track 4.
> 
> I mentioned above how the WT4 outcome described how it could be done, not how 2012 round was done, which is only part of the report.
> 
> 
> The draft says it’s optional and does not highlight the issue  discussed in Work Track 4 which I have raised and documented multiple times.
> 
> It's actually silent on that, and others also didn't take that language as saying that, as you probably remember.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.       Aggregated Technical and Financial Evaluations.   There was discussion in Work Track 4 about not putting applications that propose new and innovative services at a disadvantage as to timing of contract award based on the fact that these could not be processed as quickly.  The purpose of the new gTLD program is innovation.  Again, there are “trade-offs” here.   This question falls into the category of items as to which there has been no coordination among the Work Tracks.  While this may not have been the responsibility of Work Track 4 per se, that does not mean it is not a concern and does not mean it was not discussed.  I am not the only person in the Work Track who mentioned this problem.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between evaluation processing and results publishing. WT4 only addressed the first part; if a result is ready but due to the application sequencing it's publishing is not yet timely, then it won't be published. The process is not meant to be a waterfall, but a series of parallel efforts that have some control points, and any fairness issue is address at those control points.   I and others expressed concern about the effect of this aggregation on time of processing applications in Work Track 4.
> 
> Actually not; only in Registry Services other have mentioned that, regarding aggregation of evaluations.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180619/04f4bed5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180619/04f4bed5/signature-0001.asc>