RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

In Mike's posting of the Draft BC comments, he asked a question of me in the
section__.  My response is noted below.  You will see I am looking for some
assistance in refining the language that gets the message across more
clearly.

 

Revised Comparative Evaluation Scoring 


The Business Constituency welcomes the opportunity to comment on Draft
Applicant Guidebook v3 and draws ICANN's attention to an inequity in the
comparative evaluation scoring.


Background


The Expressions of Interest documentation created by ICANN to recruit
evaluators clearly states that the comparative evaluation section will
require a high degree of subjectivity; but, at the same time, ICANN does not
allow for any subjectivity failure on the part of the reviewer.  [Ron,
please elaborate on this, I have read it a couple times, edited below, and
still do not see enough logic in it.  Is it typical for independent reviews
to have lower thresholds for passing, to account for subjectivity?  Can we
point to some examples?] What I am trying to get at, but having difficulty
expressing is the following:  An individual is tasked with doing what all
agree is a highly subjective review.  By tight scoring, ICANN expects that
this individual will do a 'perfect' job determining highly subjective
positions?  What if he has a strong argument with his wife that day or he is
in ill health - in either case not thinking clearly - but he nonetheless
takes 'highly subjective' decisions that day.  Should we deem fair a system
that does not allow one point of failure for the individual doing the
review? Is it not possible that he may not be thinking 100% clearly?  By
experience, I know that individuals, despite the facts being otherwise, may
make a decision completely contrary to what all others agree is so.  With
only two points of failure, i.e., a 87% score to prove nexus, the window of
subjective scoring is too tight and unfair to applicants.  Three points of
failure at least allows for the reviewer to have a 'bad day' and ensure that
that 'bad day' does not crush an applicant that otherwise proves nexus in
every way.  We need a larger window.  Thirteen of sixteen is 81%.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can add the needed clarity.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: 2009-11-12 13:51
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3

 

Hi all,

 

With many thanks to Ron Andruff, David Fares and Zahid Jamil for their
inputs thus far, here is a DRAFT of BC comments to be submitted by the
comment deadline of Nov. 22 if possible.  Please indicate any objections,
questions, suggested edits or adds, etc. ASAP.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>