"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
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> 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@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
>for Dummies",
>Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://jl.ly
>_______________________________________________
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>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.
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
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.