At-Large contribution to the discussion about the mechanism
*Statement to the CCWG Auction Proceeds from At-Large* Because we could not agree on a mechanism, most of the At-Large Auction Proceeds team agrees to the following criteria which we believe that whatever mechanism is chosen should adhere to: 1. As stated by the Board, the evaluation of applications and selection of the annual slate of grant recipients is to be made by an independent panel 2. The mechanism must ensure that decisions related to the evaluation of applications should be independent of ICANN Org. 3. The mechanism could consist of its own administrative and financial staff, a small board of governors, a group of researchers to prepare recommendations on the applicants and their projects, and an independent panel who would evaluate the annual slate of grant recipients. 3. The independent panel should comprise of community advisors * who have been selected by the SO-ACs relevant to the Auction Proceeds project * who have had grant-making or grant-giving experience * who can commit the time required to meet in order to complete this work during the year * who must recuse themselves from any decisions on a project that they may be connected with in any way (same country?) 4. The mechanism should be able to sustain an office space and paid staff whose role will cover day-to-day administrative and financial tasks and include: * research into and make recommendations regarding project applications; * coordination for travel arrangements required of the volunteers on the independent panel * carry out the disbursement of the funds following any relevant US Laws * carry out on-going evaluations of projects during their agreed-to timeframes 5 There needs to be clarification about the definitions and roles of the community stakeholder group and of the independent panel, and who may expect to be paid within the mechanism. 6. Subject to legal constraints on dealing with specific countries, the mechanism must make grants to entities satisfying applicable criteria from all locations world-wide.
This is great. It describes what we want while mostly avoiding guesses about what structure would best make it happen. R's John On Fri, 26 Jul 2019, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Statement to the CCWG Auction Proceeds from At-Large Because we could not agree on a mechanism, most of the At-Large Auction Proceeds team agrees to the following criteria which we believe that whatever mechanism is chosen should adhere to:
1. As stated by the Board, the evaluation of applications and selection of the annual slate of grant recipients is to be made by an independent panel
2. The mechanism must ensure that decisions related to the evaluation of applications should be independent of ICANN Org.
3. The mechanism could consist of its own administrative and financial staff, a small board of governors, a group of researchers to prepare recommendations on the applicants and their projects, and an independent panel who would evaluate the annual slate of grant recipients.
3. The independent panel should comprise of community advisors * who have been selected by the SO-ACs relevant to the Auction Proceeds project * who have had grant-making or grant-giving experience * who can commit the time required to meet in order to complete this work during the year * who must recuse themselves from any decisions on a project that they may be connected with in any way (same country?)
4. The mechanism should be able to sustain an office space and paid staff whose role will cover day-to-day administrative and financial tasks and include: * research into and make recommendations regarding project applications; * coordination for travel arrangements required of the volunteers on the independent panel * carry out the disbursement of the funds following any relevant US Laws * carry out on-going evaluations of projects during their agreed-to timeframes
5 There needs to be clarification about the definitions and roles of the community stakeholder group and of the independent panel, and who may expect to be paid within the mechanism.
6. Subject to legal constraints on dealing with specific countries, the mechanism must make grants to entities satisfying applicable criteria from all locations world-wide. [cleardot.gif]
The best to compare the setting-up of mechanism A would be of ICANN Nominating Committee. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 23:45 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
This is great. It describes what we want while mostly avoiding guesses about what structure would best make it happen.
R's John
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Statement to the CCWG Auction Proceeds from At-Large Because we could not agree on a mechanism, most of the At-Large Auction Proceeds team agrees to the following criteria which we believe that whatever mechanism is chosen should adhere to:
1. As stated by the Board, the evaluation of applications and selection of the annual slate of grant recipients is to be made by an independent panel
2. The mechanism must ensure that decisions related to the evaluation of applications should be independent of ICANN Org.
3. The mechanism could consist of its own administrative and financial staff, a small board of governors, a group of researchers to prepare recommendations on the applicants and their projects, and an independent panel who would evaluate the annual slate of grant recipients.
3. The independent panel should comprise of community advisors * who have been selected by the SO-ACs relevant to the Auction Proceeds project * who have had grant-making or grant-giving experience * who can commit the time required to meet in order to complete this work during the year * who must recuse themselves from any decisions on a project that they may be connected with in any way (same country?)
4. The mechanism should be able to sustain an office space and paid staff whose role will cover day-to-day administrative and financial tasks and include: * research into and make recommendations regarding project applications; * coordination for travel arrangements required of the volunteers on the independent panel * carry out the disbursement of the funds following any relevant US Laws * carry out on-going evaluations of projects during their agreed-to timeframes
5 There needs to be clarification about the definitions and roles of the community stakeholder group and of the independent panel, and who may expect to be paid within the mechanism.
6. Subject to legal constraints on dealing with specific countries, the mechanism must make grants to entities satisfying applicable criteria from all locations world-wide. [cleardot.gif]
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
John Levine -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nadira Alaraj