- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Review/Assessment panels
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

Staff asked me to try to incorporate tha various comments that have been made into a new draft of the document section describing the "review" panels. The commented version is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0f…. There were extensive edits and comments, many conflicting with each other. I have tried to find a middle ground, but have left a number of "alternatives" which are in square brackets and highlighted. In general, these were areas where the positions were so different that I didn't feel that as an "editer" I had the discretion to choose. I have also renamed the groups to try to use unique words for each function (and not to use words which might confuse them with the project evaluation/selection process. Alan

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 20, 2019

Aug. 20, 2019

Underserved communities often have great grant writers - it a matter of survival for them! Alan At 20/08/2019 07:39 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: If there are comprehensive guidelines published to assist applicants, this would negate much of the disagreements. It is impossible to please everyone. Even underserved communities can have good grant writers. Providing "meaningful" feedback on proposals is very subjective and is in my opinion a very slippery slope. RD On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 17:08 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough". Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not. Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes! I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection. All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $. Alan At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile. Maureen On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse. I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee canÃ¢€™t agree an and a proposal doesnÃ¢€™t have full support but those disdiscussions are not made public. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Dear All, Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date: 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 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 ICANNÃ¢€™s Board assessment of an indindividual 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 feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed. This will be on the agenda for WednesdayÃ¢€™s ¢s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of WednesdayÃ¢€™s meeting. > Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, " 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 proposal for individual appeals mechanism My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote: It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANNÃ¢€™s existinging accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation. 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> > Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Hi Erika I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> < <mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com> < <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now. Erika Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade < marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> < <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism? Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'? Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> < <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> < <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com> < <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote: "That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program." End quote. This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled. The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants. My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" . I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind... RD On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should: - be VERY light weight; - there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission - go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final; - the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been suggested). Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds for that period on projects that were better! As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the program with little positive outcome. That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program. Alan At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote: Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations @Sylvia Cadena< <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> mailto:sylvia@apnic.net < <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over? I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea. R's, John At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote: 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<mailto:johnl@iecc.com> < <mailto:johnl@iecc.com> mailto:johnl@iecc.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. <https://jl.ly/> https://jl.ly [jl.ly]<https://jl.ly/> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&dat…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&dat… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&dat…>> ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). 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> < <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). 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> < <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). 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> < <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy ) [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos ). [icann.org]<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. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy ) [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos ). [icann.org]<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. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy ) [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos ). [icann.org]<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. _______________________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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. _______________________________________________ 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

Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Wednesday 21 August at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Aug. 20, 2019

Aug. 20, 2019

Dear CCWG, Here is the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 21 August at 14.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda 2. Review/SOI Updates 3. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) 4. Updated Proposal – Role of the Community 5. Confirmation of proposed language to address individual Appeal Mechanism 6. Update on the Work of the Small Group Focused on the Independent Panel Selecting Funding Recipients 7. Steps to finalize work by ICANN66 8. AOB 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…>.

1 0

For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by Marika Konings Aug. 17, 2019

Aug. 17, 2019

Dear CCWG, 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. 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…>.

7 7

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by John R Levine Aug. 17, 2019

Aug. 17, 2019

> Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant > making organizations @Sylvia Cadena<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> has weighed in > on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over? I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea. R's, John

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by Maureen Hilyard Aug. 17, 2019

Aug. 17, 2019

Hi John I guess I say "in case" because from my recent experience of getting some of our end-user group to ATLAS, just as an example, it doesn't matter how fair or transparent the process may be, there are still people who are going to attack it on he basis of unfairness or prejudice of some sort. And you are right, they waste an inordinate amount of time. My point therefore, is if we are going to have an appeals process because that is what has been suggested by the Executive Group, then it should be as short as possible and to the point. But Im not sure if we are discussing an ICANN process or an independent process for appeals? Maureen On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:38 PM John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > I believe that we should still have an appeals process just in case - > with > > a much lighter touch and being very clear what the process addresses > > Sorry, but I have no idea just in case what? I can imagine all sorts of > implausible ways that processes might fail but that doesn't mean we have > to invent a meta-process to deal with them all. If it's an ICANN process > failure, why wouldn't the existing ombudsman and appeal be used? > > Any grant appeals process is going to be clogged by merit-free complaints > from people who are unhappy that their wonderful proposals didn't get > funded. It will be a huge waste of time. > > 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 >

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated document - Small group on the role of the community - Review Function and Program Evaluation Panel
by Marika Konings Aug. 16, 2019

Aug. 16, 2019

Reminder – please review this document and add any comments/suggestions you may have (or respond to those provided by others). Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 10:51 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated document - Small group on the role of the community - Review Function and Program Evaluation Panel Dear all, Erika and Alan held a meeting today to review and revise their proposal on the role of the community, drawing on comments from CCWG members and discussion on the last call. You can find their updated proposal, with some new comments in the margins, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. All are welcome to provide additional feedback or suggested edits in the Google Doc in advance of the next call. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 1

Next CCWG meeting postponed to Wednesday 21 August at 14:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Aug. 8, 2019

Aug. 8, 2019

Dear all, The Co-Chairs have decided to postpone the next CCWG call by one week to give the small groups additional time to work on their proposals. The next call will take place Wednesday 21 August at 14:00 UTC. You will receive an updated invitation shortly. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Updated document - Small group on the role of the community - Review Function and Program Evaluation Panel
by Emily Barabas Aug. 7, 2019

Aug. 7, 2019

Dear all, Erika and Alan held a meeting today to review and revise their proposal on the role of the community, drawing on comments from CCWG members and discussion on the last call. You can find their updated proposal, with some new comments in the margins, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0f…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0f…>. All are welcome to provide additional feedback or suggested edits in the Google Doc in advance of the next call. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
by Maureen Hilyard Aug. 6, 2019

Aug. 6, 2019

You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both. I agree.. that's a given.. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:50 PM John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > My fault for assuming everyone had been at the same meeting. Although not > > actually stated we had been talking about the volunteers from the various > > community groups on the CCWG. And Alan's suggestion that community > > volunteers would not have the same commitment as paid experts. Somehow > > that's understandable.. but is it right? > > No, of course not. > > I think I'm a member of the community, but I've done paid work for ICANN. > Evaluating grant proposals is a significant amount of work, so you pay > people to do it, no matter where they come from. It doesn't have to be a > vast amount of money but it has to be enough that people treat it as a > commitment. > > You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in > proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both. > > 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 >

2 1