August 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Dear CCWG, Please find here for your review the latest version of the Final Report: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1hWfSYXuhAalh7F_AkkPDuxU7xf-_bN…. Attached you will find a redline version that shows you all the updates that have been made since the previous version but as the large number of redlines may be slightly overwhelming, we have posted the clean version for review and comments. Please note the following: * Text highlighted in blue are those developed by the different small teams and are new compared to the previous version of the report; * Text highlighted in yellow are items that need to be updated after completion of the survey and decision on whether or not to publish for public comment. * Redlines in the attached version are updates in response to comments received on the previous version, clarifications or the result of reorganization of the text because certain recommendations seemed to fit better under a different charter questions. You are requested to focus your review on any ‘cannot live with items’ that need further discussion or consideration. Of course, if you spot any grammatical errors, inconsistencies or language that could be clarified, please note those as well. As a reminder your input is requested by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest (see timeline below). Best regards, Marika Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

4 8

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings 31 Aug '19

31 Aug '19

Thanks, Marilyn for flagging this. I’ve updated the section you refer to with yellow highlighting to make clear that it will need to be updated per the outcome of the survey. The language there is a remainder from the Initial Report where the original focus was on mechanisms A an B. There are some other spots in the report where we have flagged that if mechanism C will be recommended as a result of the survey, the language will need to be enhanced as it is currently lacking. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 04:50 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019 Thanks for sending the present DRAFT Final Report. I will spend time reading the full report in more detail, having only skimmed it now, at 6 am my time. However, I have an immediate serious issue with page 14 and 15. We have spent the last several weeks discussing Mechanism A and Mechanism C. Almost no time even mentioning Mechanism B. Yet, I see in the report that Mechanism C is not even referenced under Charter Question #7. By staff and the leadership team even including Mechanism A and B here, it implies that these are the two mechanisms preferred for further assessment. I do not believe that is generally supported by the majority of the members of the CCWG-AP. We haven't yet "rated" the three mechanisms, but we have primarily discussed only two in the recent discussions -- and that does not include Mechanism B. So, I don't see what the justification is for excluding Mechanism C here OR, these two paragraphs should be edited out and just keep the new text. I am sure no one means to reflect a preference here, and possibly this is just unfortunate. However, think about it: if the "rating" we are doing selects A and C, and then the staff/leadership draft in the next paragraph shows preference for A and B, it gives a very confusing message to the community, to the Board, and to the SO/ACs. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 6:29 PM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019 Dear CCWG, Please find here for your review the latest version of the Final Report: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1hWfSYXuhAalh7F_AkkPDuxU7xf-_bN… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…>. Attached you will find a redline version that shows you all the updates that have been made since the previous version but as the large number of redlines may be slightly overwhelming, we have posted the clean version for review and comments. Please note the following: * Text highlighted in blue are those developed by the different small teams and are new compared to the previous version of the report; * Text highlighted in yellow are items that need to be updated after completion of the survey and decision on whether or not to publish for public comment. * Redlines in the attached version are updates in response to comments received on the previous version, clarifications or the result of reorganization of the text because certain recommendations seemed to fit better under a different charter questions. You are requested to focus your review on any ‘cannot live with items’ that need further discussion or consideration. Of course, if you spot any grammatical errors, inconsistencies or language that could be clarified, please note those as well. As a reminder your input is requested by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest (see timeline below). Best regards, Marika Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…>.

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Attached is the final version. In response to Becky's comment, I have added the word "cumulative" in 3rd APPRP bullet. It now reads: The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an cumulative assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). This hopefully makes it clear that the APPRP is not actually assessing project success but is looking at the cumulative or average success of the entire project portfolio. Alan At 26/08/2019 05:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I'll do a revision once a few more comments come it, but will make it VERY clear that the APPRP will not evaluate specific projects. As an aside, if the APPRP feels that the Mechanism is not doing proper project result evaluation, that would be a dandy reason to suggest an APPAP. Alan At 26/08/2019 05:29 PM, Becky Burr wrote: >I think it is fine for APPRP to use the >individual assessments provided by experts to >measure the overall success of the program, but >very concerned about any evaluation of >individual projects by the APPRP. I am >concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open. > >From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds ><ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on >behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam(a)lanfranco.net> >Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM >To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org>, >Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal > > >Becky’s comments touch on an area that may >need better clarity. This is the start of a new >undertaking and the annual review wording might >be cast slightly differently. Something like: > > * The prime function of the APPRP will be > to perform an annual review, starting at the > end of year 2. The first annual review will > focus on Mechanism development and an > assessment of approved projects relative to > auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will > include an assessment of funded projects, based > on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP. > > * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in > terms of its operational performance and the > auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate > individual projects beyond what is provided in > the assessments provided to the APPRP. >Casting the wording something like this (a) >distinguishes between the initial assessment and >subsequent assessments, and (b) limits >individual project assessment to evidence >“provided to the APPRP”. That does leave >open the question of who provides that evidence. >I assume that is the project recipient’s own >self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible >for assessing the quality of the reporting. >Sam L >On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: >I am having a little trouble reconciling this: > > > * The prime function of the APPRP will be > to perform an annual review (starting at the > end of year 2) of the ongoing operational > process including an assessment of approved > projects vs auction proceeds goals and an > assessment of the success of funded projects > (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). >with this: > > * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will > focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism > and will not evaluate the success of individual > funded projects, although the APPRP may take > into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. >In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer >to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"? _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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.

9 18

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

I will leave it to CCWG leadership and staff to select the right word. Alan At 28/08/2019 05:45 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: >agree with Maureen and Sam. >cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT >what we are agreeing on. > > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >_______________________________________________ >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.

1 0

For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
by Marika Konings 28 Aug '19

28 Aug '19

Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

12 24

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
by Alan Greenberg 27 Aug '19

27 Aug '19

To be clear, I mean to not mention any specific measure by name, or be exhaustive. The reference to no ICANN accountability measures applicable mus reman. At 26/08/2019 11:08 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I thought there was general agreement to not have the statement on "redress through other means". Back to Marika's original statement, I would prefer to not mention any ICANN reconsideration process, or to be exhaustive (including reconsideration and the Ombudsman). Alan At 26/08/2019 10:26 AM, Judith Hellerstein wrote: Hi MARIKA, Thanks so much for that additional insight. I had thought they did follow each other as your email had not indicated they would be in separate parts of the report. In this case I have revised the wording as follows. Also if we are using the term Board in one place we need to be consistent and so I deleted the word "Icann". If we want to use state ICANN Board int he later half of the sentence than we should use it also in the earlier instance. We should be consistent in the terms we are using The CCWG agreed that appropriate measures should be taken to exclude applicants applying for Auction Proceeds from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in any review context would be in relation to the overall programâ€™s disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel, and not a result of the Board's assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/26/2019 10:04 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWGâ€™s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWGâ€™s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: "judith(a)jhellerstein.com"<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 16:13 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika I have re-written the first paragraph to make it more understandable and clear. There is no need for the last two sentences of the first paragraph as they are contained in the second and are very clear there. I think this give a better write up of what was discussed and makes it more succinct and clear The CCWG after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeal, discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected but agreed that this would not be a feasible option. Instead it recommends that applicants not selected be given educational materials to assist them with filling out applications for future rounds and also be given the details on when this round will be open. Both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=…> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhe…> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 10:50 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall programâ€™s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org"<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. ðŸ™‚ I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> < maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during todayâ€™s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corpporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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.

5 4

Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg 26 Aug '19

26 Aug '19

Sorry this took so long. The revision is attached. Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2. Alan

5 6

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg 26 Aug '19

26 Aug '19

OK. The point I was trying to make clear was that the APPRP would not DO assessments of particular projects, but well may act on the results reported by the Mechanism. Alan At 26/08/2019 04:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this: * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"? b On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:49 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Sorry this took so long. The revision is attached. Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2. Alan_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by John R Levine 22 Aug '19

22 Aug '19

> Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual > appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. > Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of > the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August. It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g. * Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN? * I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

12 25

Next steps re. Selection of mechanism and timeline to finalize work by ICANN66
by Marika Konings 22 Aug '19

22 Aug '19

Dear CCWG, As discussed during today’s meeting, here are the proposed next steps regarding the selection of the mechanism(s) as well as the proposed timeline to finalize work by ICANN66. We would like to encourage the chartering organization appointed members to consult with their appointing organizations on their expectations with regards to these final steps as well as prepare them for the upcoming consultation on the indicative survey results and subsequent publication of the Final Report (either for public comment or for Chartering Organization consideration. Next Steps re. selection of recommended Mechanism(s) Once leadership and the CCWG are of the view that the content of the report, especially the descriptions of the different mechanisms, are in a near final state: 1. Conduct a mechanism ranking survey amongst CCWG members, including requesting input on whether one or two mechanisms should be put forward to the ICANN Board; 2. Share the results of the mechanism ranking indicative survey with CCWG. CCWG members to consult with their respective groups on the outcome of the survey and confirm whether or not it aligns with the expectations of the different chartering organizations. Sharing of the survey results would be accompanied with the latest version of the newsletter which would include details on the updates made in the final report. 3. Release an update of our regular AP newsletter to inform everyone about the process above. 4. Re-run mechanism ranking definitive survey amongst CCWG members. As a reminder, per the CCWG Charter, “in addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.” 5. Leadership to review definitive results and assess level of support. 6. Leadership to confirm consensus designation to CCWG members (“consensus call”) – leadership team to review if any concerns regarding designation are expressed. If full consensus is not achieved, establish timeline by which minority statements are to be submitted. 7. Submit final report to Chartering Organizations for adoption OR publish proposed final report for public comment. Timeline to finalize work by ICANN66 Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

2 1