Next steps re. Selection of mechanism and timeline to finalize work by ICANN66
Dear CCWG, As discussed during today’s meeting, here are the proposed next steps regarding the selection of the mechanism(s) as well as the proposed timeline to finalize work by ICANN66. We would like to encourage the chartering organization appointed members to consult with their appointing organizations on their expectations with regards to these final steps as well as prepare them for the upcoming consultation on the indicative survey results and subsequent publication of the Final Report (either for public comment or for Chartering Organization consideration. Next Steps re. selection of recommended Mechanism(s) Once leadership and the CCWG are of the view that the content of the report, especially the descriptions of the different mechanisms, are in a near final state: 1. Conduct a mechanism ranking survey amongst CCWG members, including requesting input on whether one or two mechanisms should be put forward to the ICANN Board; 2. Share the results of the mechanism ranking indicative survey with CCWG. CCWG members to consult with their respective groups on the outcome of the survey and confirm whether or not it aligns with the expectations of the different chartering organizations. Sharing of the survey results would be accompanied with the latest version of the newsletter which would include details on the updates made in the final report. 3. Release an update of our regular AP newsletter to inform everyone about the process above. 4. Re-run mechanism ranking definitive survey amongst CCWG members. As a reminder, per the CCWG Charter, “in addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.” 5. Leadership to review definitive results and assess level of support. 6. Leadership to confirm consensus designation to CCWG members (“consensus call”) – leadership team to review if any concerns regarding designation are expressed. If full consensus is not achieved, establish timeline by which minority statements are to be submitted. 7. Submit final report to Chartering Organizations for adoption OR publish proposed final report for public comment. Timeline to finalize work by ICANN66 Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 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...>.
Marika, ccWG colleagues and ICANN staff, Marika, thanks for your "Next Step" summary. I will be on a road trip from California to Oregon on the 18^th so I will miss that important call. I would like to single out several points discussed in yesterday’s meeting. There are several “construction sites” in the process for the allocation of the auction proceeds and it is important that they be kept distinct and separate. They are not all to be done by the same groups and they include: * 1.Terms of Reference and Procedures for Proposals * 2.Terms of Reference for formation and operation of the selection committee * 3.Helpful instructions/online tutorials/videos, etc. for potential applicants There is the thorny and yet unresolved issue of what to tell failed applicants. In some existing granting processes the application process assigns “points” to various aspects of the proposal, e.g., consistency with ToR mission/vision, budgetary detail, etc. and failed applicants can self-evaluate. In some cases there is feedback (see /tricky issue/ below). In others there is none, but with outside (third-party) help, failed proposals can be evaluated against successful proposals for insights and lessons learned. It is usually enough to urge failed applicants to review their applications, to invite future submissions, and leave it at that. One must take care not to leave scope for a challenge process that is messy, time consuming, and will deter good candidates from serving on selection committees. There are usually lessons learned by the selection committee and the safest path forward is to incorporate those lessons learned in the ancillary “helpful instructions” (in ways that do not identify failed applicants.) Lastly,/and this is a tricky issue/, one would hope for some consistency in the selection committee, and the actual selection criteria for subsequent proposal submissions, or at lease very explicit information on changed selection criteria. I have seen instances where government official development assistance competitions have commented on shortcomings in failed proposals, only for subsequent amended proposals to fail again because the selection committee has changed, and/or has changed the relative weights across its evaluation criteria, and applications were not informed of the changes. Good luck with the session on the 18th. Within our ccWG mandate I feel we are making good progress. Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
participants (2)
-
Marika Konings -
Sam Lanfranco