[Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5

[Justine Chew]

Hi Rubens,

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.

Kind regards,

Justine
---


On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:57, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

>
>
> On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rubens,
>
> *"Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012,
> and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself."*
>
> 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.
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf
>
> Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party
> that did background screening.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200617/e1bf24ea/attachment.html>