I would think so @Jeff

Agree. Most probably we have to prepare for no F2F meetings for a long time. It really makes some problems for NomCom.

Here is the PDF

so PDF is not the same as google doc?

I am back

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

hello 2 all

Hope everyone is ok & safe in these days of Covid19.

+1 Jeff

It allows me to have a quite cough (still not breathing properly yet)

Yes - Jeff - but we will need to see the amendments to the Guidelines at some point

I recall thinking that the Guidelines did not provide nearly enough guidance to panelists in relation to the possibility of appeals.

Thank you!

This is the working document with comments on the guidelines provided by WG members: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit

We did not Jim

In some cases the research was not replica table at later dates either

But shouldn't the burden be on the complaining party to make their case?

It's one thing to ask questions. It's another do independent research.

I still have strong reservations.

maybe if panelists go out and do research, they should specify that and request input from the parties before ruling?

Support both of those.

Perhaps it would be helpful to add to the recommendation “as described in the IG below.”

Yes one moment

I think Kristine is correct that rulings should not be made based on independent sources used by the panelist that are not disclosed to the parties.

Why wouldn't we move the rationales into the Recommendation? They seem sensible and reasonably limited.

+1 Kristine

+1 Kristine

+1 Kristine. We need to keep this limited and fact based.

It's okay for evaluators to find independent info - but they should disclose sources when ruling on the CPE

The application should be robust and supported.

And the public gets a chance to comment, right?

Perhaps more or less like checking references?

+1 Jamie

+1 Jamie

Wouldn't the public commenters bring that up?

CPE evaluators should (a) have expertise in the domain of the applicant and (b) undertake independent research with staff support.

CW

@Kristine - possibly, if those that oppose know about the application.

@Christopher - (a) it's impractical for the evaluator to be expert in every area. And (b) if staff assists, they are subject to an IRP under the bylaws. ICANN will never go for that.

+1 Paul

Theoretically no one is more biased than the applicant so a panelist has to be able to research the validity of the applicant's assertions.

+1 Paul

How do third parties know to show up?

I agree with the ability to submit a fulsome record but recall that applicants had arbitrary character limits at time of application

@Anne - but that is why people can oppose and why we have a public comment period

I agree with Jeff on this.

@Paul -more cost, more time, more delays, more legal fees! possibly not necessary

@Anne - not what I said. What I said was the examiner should rely on the entire record.

+1 Paul.

I don't agree that we can ban a panelist from doing outside research. That is too extreme.

Please recall that all this is supposed to work in all non-US jurisdictions, all third languages and all IDN applications. CW

I'm not sure that the Alzheimer's association has a "competitor" if they apply for .memory...

Wouldn't that independent information already be in the record?

Suggest we just say: In the event panelist(s) rely on independent research, that will be disclosed to the applicant and the applicant allowed to respond prior to ruling.

+1

+1

@Paul: memory -- mental health issues, computer memory hardware groups, more...

1 Paul

+1 (I mean)

If Panelist has to disclose to Applicant, they won't be disclosing fake news sources.

Agreed

go ahead Jeff

@Kathy - how do we know that?

But how would an evaluator know that a term is commonly used in other industries without doing research. The Applicant is not going to put that into its own application

In your example, the Alzheimers group will not talk about the term being used in connection with computers, right?

@Kathy, so let's not say "fake news." All an applicant needs is one person or company that doesn't like the application who writes 25 blogs and Tweet-storms for an evaluator to decide there is overwhelming lack of support.

@Jeff - Kathy called me out specifically. Can I respond

sorry Paul, my bad

But you are in the queie

queue

+1 Jaime - sounds like a good example of an examiner engaging in advocacy rather than nuetrality

+1 Jamie

tx Paul :-)

No agreement to bar examiners from study/review.

I'm more concerned about an examiner becoming an advocate based on his/her biases.

I'm mystified why it matters that someone else in a different field might want to use the string, which seemed to be what Kathy was arguing as justifying the need for research, but I may have misunderstood. Surely it's a given that someone else wants to use the string or there would not even be a community evaluation

Agree we cannot ban all research. Just limit it to verification and add a requirement for the panelist to disclose research relied on.

I recall that applicants have to confirm that the Information they submit have to be true, no?

+1 Jeff

+1 Paul

Personally I would stop any evaluator ( employed by ICANN) doing outside research . so when are they are in breach of their contract with ICANN . where do you draw the line ?

Thanks Anne!

I don't think there's any question about community applications getting priority

Wait, has anyone on this call opposed community applications?

few dozens?

@Christopher - not me. I'm coming at it the other way. I don't want examiners to be able to knock out community applications that they simply don't like for personal reasons.

On the contrary Christopher - I actually support an exclusive Priority Round for Community applications so your accusation is incorrect.

+1 Jeff, I think we already determined communities get priority.

If the issue is the concern on bias why not increase transparency on the information that is being relied upon, perhaps some type of scale that panelists assign to the info. This would also help overcome any biases and allow applicants a method to address any sources that may not be overly legitimate

yes Christa - DISCLOSURE is the key. Independent evaluation requires independent research.

SO,eone needs to mute

That depends on ICANN outreach. I personally favor a priority round for communities but I think that did not fly in our group.

We can increase the success rate by driving bias from the evaluation process.

One idea could be that an applicant could go through CPE before they submit the application - so they can adapt in case of "shortcomings"? If they pass - they already passed. The procedure should probably be confidential.

agreed . so important to get specialist evaluators . CPE needs to be a separate , prioritised , evaluation track .

it was the Economist Intelligence Unit in charge of CPE. and the ombudsman stigmatize the way they acted….

btw - GAC "communique" is at https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann67-gac-communique

To Jamie's point: The amount of opposition should be compared to the amount of support. 5 letters of opposition might be irrelevant - if you have 500 letters of support. 1 or 2 letters shouldn't automatically cost a point. Opposition should be weighted against support.

We also saw "campaigns" against community applicants driven by just one entity, this should be better taken into account in the next round by examiners.

+1 Katrin

+1 Katrin

+1 Katrin...that's what I was referring to above.

A single entity, person, or whatever can be very loud and have a disproportionate impact.

Correct, Kristine.

quantitative and qualitative assessment by expert in communities.

+1 Katrin

My idea was that you can engage in CPE before you submit the application - to be able to adapt once you see the CPE result. After that you apply with all others - but you already passed CPE (might still lose 1 point for opposition after reveal day of course). I don't support an extra round for community applicants - it disadvantages non-community applications.

Next meeting: Thursday, 19 March at 20:00 UTC

Bye, interesting discussion

Good work to all!!!

Thank you, all!

Stay safe

bye

bye all