Marilyn, Thanks for your email. Let me comment below.. On 4 Feb 2019, at 15:31, Marilyn Cade wrote:
I am not adverse to an organized presentation,
perhaps I wasn’t clear in my original comment, that being - if related initiatives that fund Internet related programs have been reviewed in some capacity so we could a. map areas of common interest, b. explore potential areas of collaboration and/or coordination, and c. assess best practices in processes, oversight and review of applications might be best practices we could use.
BUT, I am not sure why we would be spending time on state funded programs, as in particular, state sponsored grants are a two pronged approach usually, they allocate funds to a first qualified party, who takes a considerable overhead as they are the "manager", then that entity recruits and sub allocates, monitors, etc. and they also take a considerable overhead to hire staff, manage the project day to day, so a much reduced amount eventually is spent locally.
I mentioned the - state department - funding call as an example, that might be interesting to review. The DRL funding call has a very different scope, but other related processes - such as how applications will be reviewed, reporting requirements and additional details requested - in my opinion, follow best practices that might be worthwhile to incorporate in some fashion.
I also note that the majority of this list is focused on digital/human rights.
It’s not the focus of the funding calls that think is of interest to this ccwg.. instead, the additional materials requested from applicants (financial experience, outcomes, experience, etc) as well as processes that are used to review applications are - pretty standard and echo many of the public comments that were received.
I had hoped that the examples we developed earlier would stand the test of rationality as we evolved the work of the CCWG-AP. As attested in the detailed transcripts of the discussion of the group, which I hope the all who joined mid stream, so to speak, as I did at Meeting 17, reviewed, there have been detailed discussions. It is important to keep in mind that we have struggled to ensure that we can defend to the broader ICANN community and the ICANN Board that the principles/examples are focused on areas "aligned" with ICANN's mission.
While there’s a lot that can be funded, I agree with many of the public comments that there needs to be a focus on projects that are not just aligned, but also focused on ICANN’s core mission (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1).
If we are to make time for a second round to inform ourselves and to help us fine-tune our recommendations, I'd prefer that we have an organized approach, a required set of questions for the presenter, and of course, the presenters need to understand that they need to declare any conflict of interest for themselves if they then intend to apply for the funding from the Auction Proceeds in the future.
So, if there in interest in another round of "interviews" with existing granting organizations, let's consider who, why, and what to maximize the effectiveness of their time, and ours.
A coordination and collaboration with existing well respected existing foundations, funding bodies other donor bodies could be helpful. Interviews, I don’t think are the right mechanism. A more strategic dialogue, that could include a MOU on collaboration and coordination could be helpful. What others think and how to include it in our work an recommendations is something, I believe should be discussed in more detail (if it hasn’t already). I welcome your comments and those of others.. regards Robert