Hi Erika, Marika and others,
Thanks Sylvia for your helpful comments about whether AC/SOs are
eligible to apply for funds and for your comments on the board
letter. I too am confused about the Board's comments. What
happens is we choose mechanism 2 and the decisions are made by the
Fund advisor chosen. They are completely independent from the
Board, would we still need another panel. What happens if in the
case of Sylvia's second point, the board thinks the choices made
were poor.
I would seek clarification and ask if we went with Mechanism 2 or
3 would we still need the Independent review panel?
Also Sylvia brings up very interesting points were the whole
slate of nominees be rules invalid and we would have to start
again, or would just one of the grants be ruled invalid and it
could be assign to the next in line.
My other concern is when they say that the money is ICANN and if
ICANN needed it, it could take the money. We have not seen this
type of language. In all cases, ICANN puts out a notice for
comment and request views and theoretically of the views come back
all negative than the thing is not done. Or if it is done at least
there is a semblance of evidence to show people were consulted and
advised for it. But to not even ask at all, I have not seen this
in my 4 years of being involved.
I think it was a good idea to mention it in the document out for
public comment as we can hear from the community and I am eager to
hear what people have to say. I look forward to hearing the
discussion in Barcelona. I will not be there in person but be on
the call via the remote participation in the Adobe room
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@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 10/8/2018 8:12 PM, Sylvia Cadena
wrote:
Thanks
Marika, really appreciate the hard work that went into this.
Thanks
Erika for including that sentence about the board letter
that was received recently, I think it was the best way
forward.
As
for comments about the board letter, I would like to share
these:
- As
the SO/AC’s are legally registered organizations it will
not be possible for them to pass a due diligence review
for grant allocation. What normally happens in this type
of cases is that a legal entity submits a proposal on
behalf of such group, offering “secretariat support” which
means they will be ones whose capacity is checked to
receive and manage a grant, produce reports, etc. If the
mechanism allows for not-legally registered
bodies/entities to apply (and be selected for funding
allocation) then a lot of work has to be done so that the
selected recipient is able to successfully complete the
due diligence process. It is not impossible, but the
alternative path for that group to be able to demonstrate
that they have the capacity to conduct the work, manage
the funds and produce reports has to be designed and
communicated so that it is not seeing as a barrier for
participation. That might include for example, letters of
commitment from members of the group to confirm what/how
they are supporting the work and what skills they have
(for example someone acting as project manager, someone
else as treasurer/financial officer, etc), accepting
financial statements instead of audit reports (as not
every organization gets audited), and other alternative
mechanisms. Due diligence is a very important part of the
process, but one has to remain focus on what the real
objective is: is allocate the grants to the best possible
proposals, not to the organizations that can pass the due
diligence. Being able to respond to the reality of the
community supported is a really important part of being
able to support the best projects/ideas. For example, some
grants programs allow to include the costs of completing a
legal registration for a community group selected, as part
of the grant allocation. That leaves a long-term benefit
for the community and allows for good ideas to be
discussed/selected, even if they don’t fit all the
criteria for grant allocation in the first place.
- This
group and the drafting team before touched on selection
mechanisms (committees, panels, etc) in the past, although
probably without enough detail. I don’t think the board
comment about an independent panel is new, but there are
still quite a few details for this group to discuss on
that regard (membership, appointment, terms, rotation). I
am confused by the way the last part of the letter is
worded, about what the board will or will not confirm, and
what will happen then. If the board assess the “slate of
successful applicants” and considers that the panel did
not follow the process, then the whole selection might be
thrown away. I don’t think that will be a fair way to do
that, as applications were assessed individually, so it
might be the case that some rules were not fully followed
for one, and 10 projects are listed, and then. the other 9
projects are not selected and there will be a cast of
doubt in each and everyone of the other 9 projects and
also on the whole committee/panel. What will be the
acceptable reasons for the board to “reject” a project
already recommended by the committee/panel really needs to
be considered, as well as how is that communicated to the
community. To be honest I would rather have the board
sending a question back to the CCWG about what might be
the recommendations from the CCWG about a selection
process/committee/panel to allow the discussions to flow,
instead of getting framed already.
Regards,
Sylvia
---------
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head
of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net |
http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on
International Cooperation 2018 |
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.
Dear All,
Please note that
the public comment forum is now live at
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018-10-08-en.
Best regards,
Marika
Thank you all
for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move
forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments
and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the
topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come
back to these questions after the public comment period.
Hi Marika,
Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft
report/recommendations is published today.
On Sun, Oct
7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
wrote:
AH, John,
thanks for that important clarification. You are
quite correct. I was thinking more
"minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.
Alan's
comments -- I think that is in line with my
perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others
from the CSG participants, but as this is not
urgent, as noted, I think we
At
07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>BUT, For later discussion : am not sure
what Bd thinks it is saying
>>re whether or what funding an SO/AC
community can apply. NONE of
>>the SO/AC/constituencies are legally
affiliated w ICANN.
>
>I believe the question is whether the SO or AC
itself could ask for
>money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study
some security issue or the GNSO
>asks for money for some study about
perceptions of new TLDs.
>
>I don't think anyone considers the members of
an SO or AC to be
>inherently conflicted.
>
>R's,
>John
Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of
the ICANN Bylaws
and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN
applying. But and ALS for
the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its
constituent
parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.
Alan
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds