[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards

Fri Apr 24 22:59:33 UTC 2020

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 at icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl at hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl at hovtek.com.au>, Jamie Baxter <Jamie at dotgay.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards

[cid:image001.gif at 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 at taftlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl at hovtek.com.au) <cheryl at hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie at dotgay.com) <jamie at 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 at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl at hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl at hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl at hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl at hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie at dotgay.com<mailto:jamie at dotgay.com>) <jamie at dotgay.com<mailto:jamie at 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 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl at hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl at hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl at hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl at hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie at dotgay.com<mailto:jamie at dotgay.com>) <jamie at dotgay.com<mailto:jamie at 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 at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image002.png at 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 at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200424/836c69ee/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 71 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200424/836c69ee/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6524 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200424/836c69ee/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2462 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200424/836c69ee/image003-0001.jpg>