Revised review/assessment proposal
Sorry this took so long. The revision is attached. Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2. Alan
I am having a little trouble reconciling this: - The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals *and an assessment of the success of funded projects* (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this: - For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and w*ill not evaluate the success of individual funded projects*, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"? b On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:49 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Sorry this took so long.
The revision is attached.
Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2.
Alan_______________________________________________ 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.
I agree that the two bullet points do make conflicting statements. I agree with Becky's change to the first statement. On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:08 AM Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> wrote:
I am having a little trouble reconciling this:
- The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals *and an assessment of the success of funded projects* (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP).
with this:
- For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and w*ill not evaluate the success of individual funded projects*, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism.
In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?
b
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:49 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Sorry this took so long.
The revision is attached.
Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2.
Alan_______________________________________________ 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.
Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be cast slightly differently. Something like: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review, starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP. * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments provided to the APPRP. Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP”. That does leave open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible for assessing the quality of the reporting. Sam L On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote:
I am having a little trouble reconciling this:
* The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals *and an assessment of the success of funded projects* (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP).
with this:
* For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and w*ill not evaluate the success of individual funded projects*, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism.
In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?
I think it is fine for APPRP to use the individual assessments provided by experts to measure the overall success of the program, but very concerned about any evaluation of individual projects by the APPRP. I am concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be cast slightly differently. Something like: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review, starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP. * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments provided to the APPRP. Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP”. That does leave open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible for assessing the quality of the reporting. Sam L On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this: * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?
I'll do a revision once a few more comments come it, but will make it VERY clear that the APPRP will not evaluate specific projects. As an aside, if the APPRP feels that the Mechanism is not doing proper project result evaluation, that would be a dandy reason to suggest an APPAP. Alan At 26/08/2019 05:29 PM, Becky Burr wrote:
I think it is fine for APPRP to use the individual assessments provided by experts to measure the overall success of the program, but very concerned about any evaluation of individual projects by the APPRP. I am concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be cast slightly differently. Something like:
* The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review, starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP.
* The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments provided to the APPRP. Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP”. That does leave open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible for assessing the quality of the reporting. Sam L On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this:
* The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this:
* For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?
By the end of year 2, there whould already be a good history of projects, so not sure I would agree with the distinction. If we were to start at the end of year 1, I would agree. At 26/08/2019 05:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be cast slightly differently. Something like: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review, starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP. * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments provided to the APPRP. Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP”. That does leave open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible for assessing the quality of the reporting. Sam L On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this: * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Becky Burr -
Becky Burr -
Maureen Hilyard -
Sam Lanfranco