As a point of clarification, the ICANN Board has already provided inputs that it expects the evaluation of applications and selection of the annual slate of grant recipients to be done by an independent panel. As a result, the conclusion
that “icann staff will be reviewing all grant applications and choosing the winners” is not an option that we understand to be under consideration for any of the mechanisms. Under A, ICANN org would be responsible for contracting with an external, independent
panel and would have to build in the appropriate mechanisms to maintain independence of that panel, similar to what has been done for other evaluation processes over the years.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com>
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 8:26 PM
To: Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com>
Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft
Hi Elliot
Mechanism A is an internal icann department hired to do the evaluation and choosing of grants
As such icann staff will be reviewing all grant applications and choosing the winners. This is why I said, to me it is clear, that this mechanism has the least independence and in my mind does not meet the requirements set up by the board.
If icann outsourced the reviewing and selection of the grantees it us not clear to me what the difference of the mechanisms us to me.
With mechanism b, this choice of reviewing and selecting the grant winners will be done by the donor advisory fund. This is and independent group where icann has no ability to influence
Mechanism C is an icann foundation. Again an independent group reviews and select the grantees
Hope this answers your questions
Best
Judith
On Jul 25, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote: