RE: [gtld-council] Pre application assessment

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had meant to post on this and got lost in other work.
But, I too recall the discussion and the 'good intent'. I don't think that
public events that are specific to a string application are the right
approach, since applicants may have some creative ideas in mind that they
want to develop and a public meeting where they disclose their plans would
put them into a situation of giving away their 'design' ideas. 

However, one benefit is an opportunity to have a 'preliminary walk through'
to ensure understanding of the contractual requirements. 
That might look like a public event, where there is a presentation by staff
of the requirements in the bid document, and an opportunity for Q and A. 
That is neutral, factual, and can be public, and will be preliminary. 

I'd recommend it be done in conjunction/such as before or after an ICANN
meeting but at the same site, with robust remote participation supported.
I don't think that private meetings are a good idea at that stage, given the
concerns that one might have about miscommunication. But a public briefing
on requirements -- something that is typical in procurement venues -- can be
a benefit to interested applicants. 

Marilyn 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 4:00 AM
To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gtld-council] Pre application assessment


Before we delete the wording in 2.2 on "public pre-evaluation hearings" can
we recall our
discussion on this.

I recall that we discussed and I thought all agreed that a "good idea in
principle" would be
that an applicant could check in advance in some way if his proposed string
was likely to
pass the string criteria evaluation. This would save time and money for
applicants and staff
reducing the evaluation of strings that would be finally rejected.

I agree that making this a public pre-evaluation hearing is beyond what we
discussed but it
seems an eminently sensible idea.
The ICANN department responsible for initial application evaluation would be
the right place
for a pre-application check.
The need for this to be public or a hearing is unnecessary. It should be
sufficient for the
ICANN staff department to be able to say:
"It seems possible that your proposed string would not meet the condition
xxx".
This would merely warn an applicant of likely rejection but should not stop
a determined
applicant if they wanted to go ahead anyway.

Any dissent on this way forward?

Philip