Hello All.
Please find included below the notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3,
transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2019+Meetings.
ACTION ITEMS
Leadership team to formulate - as soon as possible - a question to the Board, asking whether the Board could consider a situation where the evaluation would be done by community members, and potentially outside efforts
Small group to be set up, to clarify the criteria for independence. Stepped forward: Marylin Cade, Maureen Hilyard, Vanda Scartezini, Ching Chiao, Thato Mfikwe, Alan Greenberg, Jonathan Robinson, Elliot Noss
Erika and Alan to look into the question whether we can strengthen the role of the community further, beyond whether what Alan and Erika originally envisaged, and based on the feedback received during the public comment period.
clarifications to be provided to ICANN Board liaisons
CCWG members are encouraged to review Sam’s memo ahead of the next meeting.
Sam will revise the memo about the individual appeal. Alan, possibly other community members will weigh in over email regarding Sam’s proposal
NOTES
No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.
2.
Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s)
4 mechanisms were created: looking at various scenarios that are already available, and pick the best.
A: inhouse model
B: inhouse + other entity
C: foundation
D: fund outsourced to other entity
D was ruled out, C was favoured less.
Public comment: quite a few comments favoured C. Different concerns raised about independence.
Erika favours to recommend only 1 single mechanism, and to make a recommendation to the board. Alternatively, we could make a hierarchy and present it to the Board.
Once a decision about the mechanism was taken, the next group needs to do the work on how this shall function. To help them, we have established guidelines: They formulate some principles.
You can find the graphics here:
https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Graphics
And the summary of inputs from ICANN Board and Org are here:
https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/FAQs
Emily runs through the e-mail sent by Joke to the list, on behalf of the co-chairs. Summary of the main topics:
Topic discussed a lot in the past, and also the Board and ICANN Org provided input.
See Q&A, 2 graphics as shared in Marrakech (division responsibilities & common characteristics)
ICANN Board spoke already about this. Info included in the FAQ, and recent email exchanges from Board Liaisons to the group
See email sent to ICANN org
Mechanism D was taken off the table. Leadership team does not want to re-open the discussion
As part of the agenda for today. Proposal by Alan and Erika
Alan:
Focusing too much on the names of the mechanisms, instead of on the substance, on the characteristics.
If we have a foundation, what are the criteria to make sure it is indeed independent?
Elliot:
Critical comments on the view of the CCWG. they assumed ICANN org to take the decisions. However, Independent panel composed by the community. Seems there is strong consensus with the CCWG
for mechanism A where the independent panel is ICANN community. That would require a level of independence both operationally, and in terms of COI (similar to NomCom). Suggests to focus on that view.
Judith:
If we outsource, and take into account what the Board has said, there is not much difference between A and B
Becky:
No follow-up conversations happened so far with the rest of the Board.
Independence issue: the Board finds it absolutely critical that the panel that evaluates and selects winners and losers must be completely independent. Indepent of ICANN org, the Board, and
the vested interests in the community itself. Board has fiduciary obligations and needs to ensure ICANN stays within its mission. Administrative tasks for ICANN Board. Community has a big role in talking about the priorities, the training for the independent
panel etc.
Jonathan:
Conflict between Becky and Elliot his view?
Elliot thinks what Becky says is correct. It does not contradict his view of community involvement. A community group is scoring and choosing proposals. There should be no COI with those
proposals. Principles of independence should apply. As an example: how NomCom deals with conflicts.
Members of the community group can help promote, but step out as soon as there is a COI.
Becky:
NomCom is not independent, in the sense that its members are drawn from the various parts of the community, including people who are very active in ICANN processes, and have vested interests
in outcomes
Erika:
Community is stretched thin. High workload. Either the community is the evaluator, or the community has an oversight function. Latter is more appropriate in Erika’s view.
Becky:
The Board sees a very important role for the community. However, icann community members in the selection and evaluation panel makes independence extremely difficult to achieve.
Role of the community is critical, in an advisory Board.
Alan:
Evaluation the applications should be done by professionals. Concerns relying on a volunteer force.
Summary by Erika:
Action items:
2.
Proposal – Role of the Community (see attached updated draft Final Report – pages 21-22)
Proposal presented by Alan, that stands regardless of what the selection panel is.
What mechanism do we use, once the programme is running, to make sure the programme stays on track? Mid-course corrections might be needed.
Called an “Advisory Board”. Some say it is a working group, or a committee. Arbitrary name.
Role of the Advisory Board (AB):
Programme Evaluation Panel (PEP):
Project Evaluation Panel (PEP) = Group doing the actual selection
Assessment = determine how well the projects are working
Why are both AB and PEP needed?
One is on an annual basis, looking at a low level. Minor changes, tweaks. The first group will act as a sounding board to the PEP. The second group is looking at matters at a much higher
level.
Erika:
asking for confirmation from the group about whether this proposal is something that could be supported by the group in principle. No comments were raised. the group would keep the conversation
going.
Becky:
Understands the different roles. But if things are going drastically wrong, the AB would notice that. And that might be the trigger for a different process. Concern why we need both the AB
and the PEP.
The AB would be able to interact with the independent evaluation panel and provide input in midst of evaluation: that is extremely worrisome. Inappropriate for the AB to develop the materials
that go out to applicants. Training etc for those doing the evaluation.
Extreme danger of affecting outcome of processes in an ad hoc way, which raises the potential for disputes.
Maureen:
2 evaluation groups, that increases the potential for conflict.
Alan:
Can the evaluators ask for clarifications somewhere? That is what we were looking into
Becky:
Erika:
Review cycle. Audit is part of it
Action item:
Erika:
No operational audit at ICANN. Financial audit ICANN does have
3.
Discussion of Individual Appeal Mechanism (see attached memo from ICANN Legal)
Introduction by Sam:
If there were to be a separate appeals process, it would have to be simple. Other grant making organisations have also a lightweight process. Appeals are not about the individual judgement
of the panel. It needs to be based on certain grounds. E.g. improper criteria applied, lack of compliance with published process, COI etc.
Do not allow individual grant applicants, and they should not use ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. What will give them a chance to challenge decisions? Due process?
Action items:
Alan:
Sam:
Final appeals process needs to match with the process we have. Maybe not all grounds would apply. Who the evaluator is? These are appeals to the panel itself, or a person that oversees the
panel. It is at the implementation level. How is the panel administered? A person responsible for coordinating the work by the panel? Into the panel decision making process.
Action items:
4.
AOB
Scheduling of the next call.
14 August 2019 | 14 UTC
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/