For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> interactive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> GNSO Newcomer pages.
Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>.
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
*The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel*
------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org < maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM *To:* 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
*The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.*
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process * *could** get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these *by Friday 23 August at the latest*.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
*The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants* *not selected* [*should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]*.* would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.*
*CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants **not selected* [*should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]*.* [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. *
Best regards,
Marika
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: **marika.konings@icann.org* <marika.konings@icann.org>
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our **interactive courses* <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann.org%2Fcourses%2Fgnso&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d6966c26f6b4b7f160208d7270ec805%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637020816742857473&sdata=m67NwqjrzCwAza1CxCl20kd0ZX%2BRSa%2B555pBmagAP7c%3D&reserved=0>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages* <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> *. *
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds." Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended? J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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 have cautious thoughts about the sentence: This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. It seems to contradict what has been discussed by those who have been participating actively. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann.org%2Fcourses%2Fgnso&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=9qLFdl3wsMERMhSaTDKtVdmWhKdXJNxdo9d37Z3%2F%2Bm8%3D&reserved=0=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Ffiles%2Fgnso%2Fpresentations%2Fpolicy-efforts.htm%23newcomers&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=UouOq%2FDOXcAPsXrXtbplgGTWHfkhtlK5yXt9e%2BwefzQ%3D&reserved=0=>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=57gYju4%2FTFsIx04pjAQ3s9TNdw9JR%2BoGsR0ekuhUrCI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=%2Fg1mJ8gqul9D0WXs8NO11l34n1DXN6UD4Kfd6hTPOCQ%3D&reserved=0 [icann.org]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=%2Fg1mJ8gqul9D0WXs8NO11l34n1DXN6UD4Kfd6hTPOCQ%3D&reserved=0=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764064339&sdata=xRU2udUN69K4uIvAMBuBuebDUz1XzuyTw%2BJhl%2B3BKM0%3D&reserved=0 [icann.org]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9a337ef251ef4ce5f88708d727e0913c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021717764074338&sdata=%2FD%2B1OZq%2BBQ96ABtOuHWK8%2BjxdwzvEi9tIR%2BmTeu7xiQ%3D&reserved=0=>). 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.
Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it? Best regards, Marika
On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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 would remove it. J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM To: Becky Burr Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it? Best regards, Marika
On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Agree. Remove it. ________________________________ From: Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:09 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism I would remove it. J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM To: Becky Burr Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it? Best regards, Marika
On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann.org%2Fcourses%2Fgnso&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=mxhpOS%2BooZFt9o99Z%2FCvh8Q6LSCD1TfTHRc1h7uIKwc%3D&reserved=0=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Ffiles%2Fgnso%2Fpresentations%2Fpolicy-efforts.htm%23newcomers&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=bIH6rSLN9xzut1bx8Zwq%2Fvm2oBrcplt6NY3j0I9w3U0%3D&reserved=0=>.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=NwuLS5JR8hbLGERMwJPGL6IUct3KwT%2FOGCw2ZECdfFc%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=WM1UDHjAZUdpQ4xYDKXA4auMUugRGxqvw5PYldPmLv8%3D&reserved=0= [icann.org]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=WM1UDHjAZUdpQ4xYDKXA4auMUugRGxqvw5PYldPmLv8%3D&reserved=0=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=8dkjMpQKhfzBsdZBmyxQSh%2FCtUFLfqZZhL3PKrG1bcE%3D&reserved=0= [icann.org]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=8dkjMpQKhfzBsdZBmyxQSh%2FCtUFLfqZZhL3PKrG1bcE%3D&reserved=0=>). 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 to remove because as Marilyn has mentioned, it seems to conflict with the consensus opinion of our recent discussion on this issue. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:10 AM Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
I would remove it.
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM To: Becky Burr Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it?
Best regards,
Marika
On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" < maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto: maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto: marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [ nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [ nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect... .
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... [icann.org]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... [icann.org]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Judith, the first paragraph is intended to describe the CCWG deliberations that led to the recommendation (the second paragraph) so the reader of the report has the appropriate context. Best regards, Marika On 23 Aug 2019, at 15:45, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> wrote: HI All, Are we removing the first paragraph and just keeping the second. I found the first paragraph a bit confusing. The second is clear and crisp 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 3:23 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I agree to remove because as Marilyn has mentioned, it seems to conflict with the consensus opinion of our recent discussion on this issue. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:10 AM Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote: I would remove it. J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM To: Becky Burr Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it? Best regards, Marika
On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=XfzHBBr5bgmcKE-7ustxxH-pkthtloNOtV8KcBMkPY4&s=niFjXDgNqOV0TiyNEQDSvwu24g7oTnJdD_PUKFhH1IY&e=>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flearn.icann.org-252Fcourses-252Fgnso-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C0d6966c26f6b4b7f160208d7270ec805-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637020816742857473-26sdata-3Dm67NwqjrzCwAza1CxCl20kd0ZX-252BRSa-252B555pBmagAP7c-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=GAlAaM9w_w2HjVwcC2gRuyGxQZMaJn-d7prnvWQObIY&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=XfzHBBr5bgmcKE-7ustxxH-pkthtloNOtV8KcBMkPY4&s=niFjXDgNqOV0TiyNEQDSvwu24g7oTnJdD_PUKFhH1IY&e=>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Fsites-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Ffiles-252Fgnso-252Fpresentations-252Fpolicy-2Defforts.htm-2523newcomers-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C0d6966c26f6b4b7f160208d7270ec805-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637020816742857473-26sdata-3DVJ6tOtbRk5itYW7ViX6a-252Fom2GvkMdGxfjtNcnfhLCNI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=bvrVhZCohgNe4O57ZVNkl7C07wlMkDMm2JKsMzeEcbQ&e=>.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... [icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icann.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=XfzHBBr5bgmcKE-7ustxxH-pkthtloNOtV8KcBMkPY4&s=g8K8VLmnpih7qwP5FK26-8VD7iih4cYIO4kp5urWYXY&e=>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=8KWQT6SoWD-6y3Je__4VgpJA25P08aNY6nlAORI_zCw&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... [icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icann.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=XfzHBBr5bgmcKE-7ustxxH-pkthtloNOtV8KcBMkPY4&s=g8K8VLmnpih7qwP5FK26-8VD7iih4cYIO4kp5urWYXY&e=>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=92epM9k1aA_Nh86w-YgwOEOTPptcgIxJWn6MP4Aku9o&e=>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). 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.
Agree Becky- remove. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. On 8/23/19, 16:10, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Becky Burr" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote: I would remove it. J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM To: Becky Burr Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it? Best regards, Marika > On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote: > > Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds." > > > Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended? > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP > > 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor > > Washington DC 20036 > > 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) > > > ________________________________ > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM > To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism > > Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: > > The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. > CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> > Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 > To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> > Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism > > agree with Marilyn's proposed changes > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: > Agreeing with Maarten. > If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. > > 🙂 > I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a > POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. > > > The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel > > ________________________________ > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM > To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism > > > Dear Marika, > > > > Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. > > > > When you say below: > > > > The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. > > > > It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. > > > > Thanks > > > > Maarten > > > > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings > Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 > To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism > > > > Dear CCWG, > > > > Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. > > > > Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: > > > > The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. > > CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > > > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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 - leadership is in discussion about this item. You echo concerns raised by Mart- and I do share these concerns. Staff is planning to send an updated Draft Final Report on Friday, and leadership will evaluate today and tomorrow the language related to this particular item. * *Kind regards, * *Erika* On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:43 PM Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto: maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto: marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [ nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [ nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...
.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [ icann.org]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [ icann.org]< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Thanks Erika Becky Burr * Sent from my iPad
On Aug 28, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Becky - leadership is in discussion about this item. You echo concerns raised by Mart- and I do share these concerns. Staff is planning to send an updated Draft Final Report on Friday, and leadership will evaluate today and tomorrow the language related to this particular item. Kind regards, Erika
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:43 PM Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote: Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended?
J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards,
Marika
From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear Marika,
Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
When you say below:
The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
Thanks
Maarten
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
Dear CCWG,
Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Thanks Erika for the follow up. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:08 To: Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Becky - leadership is in discussion about this item. You echo concerns raised by Mart- and I do share these concerns. Staff is planning to send an updated Draft Final Report on Friday, and leadership will evaluate today and tomorrow the language related to this particular item. Kind regards, Erika On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:43 PM Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote: Will both paragraphs be included or just the second? If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds." Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms? Is that what is intended? J. Beckwith Burr HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor Washington DC 20036 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>" <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com<http://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flearn.icann.org-252Fcourses-252Fgnso-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C0d6966c26f6b4b7f160208d7270ec805-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637020816742857473-26sdata-3Dm67NwqjrzCwAza1CxCl20kd0ZX-252BRSa-252B555pBmagAP7c-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=GAlAaM9w_w2HjVwcC2gRuyGxQZMaJn-d7prnvWQObIY&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com<http://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Fsites-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Ffiles-252Fgnso-252Fpresentations-252Fpolicy-2Defforts.htm-2523newcomers-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C0d6966c26f6b4b7f160208d7270ec805-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637020816742857473-26sdata-3DVJ6tOtbRk5itYW7ViX6a-252Fom2GvkMdGxfjtNcnfhLCNI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=bvrVhZCohgNe4O57ZVNkl7C07wlMkDMm2JKsMzeEcbQ&e=>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org<http://icann.org>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=8KWQT6SoWD-6y3Je__4VgpJA25P08aNY6nlAORI_zCw&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org<http://icann.org>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=AZ4orHcPu51ekfEgA2Z5AJNLdvW9R7jNPgAV4L_60Jc&s=92epM9k1aA_Nh86w-YgwOEOTPptcgIxJWn6MP4Aku9o&e=>). 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<mailto: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.
Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWG’s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWG’s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: "judith@jhellerstein.com" <judith@jhellerstein.com> Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 16:13 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika I have re-written the first paragraph to make it more understandable and clear. There is no need for the last two sentences of the first paragraph as they are contained in the second and are very clear there. I think this give a better write up of what was discussed and makes it more succinct and clear The CCWG after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeal, discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected but agreed that this would not be a feasible option. Instead it recommends that applicants not selected be given educational materials to assist them with filling out applications for future rounds and also be given the details on when this round will be open. Both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 10:50 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org"<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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 endorse Marika's argument for including the rationale in the first paragraph. Sam L. On 8/26/2019 10:04 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWG’s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWG’s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report.
Best regards,
Marika
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam@lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
I thought there was general agreement to not have the statement on "redress through other means". Back to Marika's original statement, I would prefer to not mention any ICANN reconsideration process, or to be exhaustive (including reconsideration and the Ombudsman). Alan At 26/08/2019 10:26 AM, Judith Hellerstein wrote: Hi MARIKA, Thanks so much for that additional insight. I had thought they did follow each other as your email had not indicated they would be in separate parts of the report. In this case I have revised the wording as follows. Also if we are using the term Board in one place we need to be consistent and so I deleted the word "Icann". If we want to use state ICANN Board int he later half of the sentence than we should use it also in the earlier instance. We should be consistent in the terms we are using The CCWG agreed that appropriate measures should be taken to exclude applicants applying for Auction Proceeds from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in any review context would be in relation to the overall program’s disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel, and not a result of the Board's assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/26/2019 10:04 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWG’s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWG’s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: "judith@jhellerstein.com"<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 16:13 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika I have re-written the first paragraph to make it more understandable and clear. There is no need for the last two sentences of the first paragraph as they are contained in the second and are very clear there. I think this give a better write up of what was discussed and makes it more succinct and clear The CCWG after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeal, discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected but agreed that this would not be a feasible option. Instead it recommends that applicants not selected be given educational materials to assist them with filling out applications for future rounds and also be given the details on when this round will be open. Both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 10:50 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org"<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> < maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corpporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
I think we maybe talking about two different things - I was referring to the rationale for not providing access to ICANN accountability mechanisms not the sentence that includes a reference to ‘redress to other means’ which I think most agreed to remove. Best regards, Marika On 26 Aug 2019, at 09:12, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> wrote: HI Alan, Apparently Marika said that we have to mention it. I had earlier suggested that we take this out of the paragraph entirely but Marika said that we need to put that in so I just rephrased it 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/26/2019 11:08 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I thought there was general agreement to not have the statement on "redress through other means". Back to Marika's original statement, I would prefer to not mention any ICANN reconsideration process, or to be exhaustive (including reconsideration and the Ombudsman). Alan At 26/08/2019 10:26 AM, Judith Hellerstein wrote: Hi MARIKA, Thanks so much for that additional insight. I had thought they did follow each other as your email had not indicated they would be in separate parts of the report. In this case I have revised the wording as follows. Also if we are using the term Board in one place we need to be consistent and so I deleted the word "Icann". If we want to use state ICANN Board int he later half of the sentence than we should use it also in the earlier instance. We should be consistent in the terms we are using The CCWG agreed that appropriate measures should be taken to exclude applicants applying for Auction Proceeds from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in any review context would be in relation to the overall program’s disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel, and not a result of the Board's assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/26/2019 10:04 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWG’s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWG’s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: "judith@jhellerstein.com"<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 16:13 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika I have re-written the first paragraph to make it more understandable and clear. There is no need for the last two sentences of the first paragraph as they are contained in the second and are very clear there. I think this give a better write up of what was discussed and makes it more succinct and clear The CCWG after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeal, discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected but agreed that this would not be a feasible option. Instead it recommends that applicants not selected be given educational materials to assist them with filling out applications for future rounds and also be given the details on when this round will be open. Both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. 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<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=D...> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 10:50 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman@board.icann.org"<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. 🙂 I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> < maarten.botterman@board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corpporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Becky Burr -
Becky Burr -
Erika Mann -
ICANN
-
Judith Hellerstein -
maarten.botterman＠board.icann.org -
Marika Konings -
Marilyn Cade -
Maureen Hilyard -
Sam Lanfranco -
Vanda Scartezini