Hi, First, I would like to agree with some comments made by Alan before, that said that: “ANY of the mechanisms we have been looking at could be implemented so that they meet our goals, albeit in different ways and potentially for different costs. But any of them could also fail. “ I totally agree wit Alan, that what is important is HOW and that clear criteria for such implementation is paramount, for which he provided two examples. “Perhaps: Do not build processes/staff if the service can be readily and economically outsourced? Perhaps: Do not replicate services already available from ICANN if they do not impact the integrity of the granting process (which includes advertising, granting, project outcome evaluation, reporting)” It is possible to structure a separate Foundation that is “owned” by the larger donor organization that created it. That is how Foundations are set by universities or large corporates. That is our case, but across different legal jurisdictions, so will not share details here to avoid confusion. All I want to say -again-, is that is possible. My understanding is that the group wants to establish two separate groups… one for proposals review and one for program review. However, the document seems to reference 3. I don’t think 3 are needed. It will overcomplicate things. Plus the staff running the program, that will be 4. It will be important not to have overlapping or contradicting authority here, as that will put the staff/secretariat in a very complicated position. Although remuneration might be provided, it is not common for selection panels to be remunerated. It is done by some programs, but it is not common practice. It is common for advisory groups and boards, but not for selection panels. What some large government grants programs do is to hire external experts to give input to a selection panel. The expert is paid, the panel members are not. Grant proposals selection committee * Review proposals, based on the selection process/platform set up by staff * Issue recommendations for grant allocation and project implementation. * Provide feedback about process, criteria used. * Due to the topics/themes to be assessed, and its relevance to the community, I think it will be highly unlikely to be able to find external (truly external) people to engage on this part. Community participation will be needed. *This group should not make decisions about changing selection criteria/process or be involved in appeals besides the reasons for which a specific proposal was not accepted. Advisory/Review panel * Provide input to staff before a call is launched to tidy up possible loose ends * Review feedback received from applicants and selection panel members and recommend ways forward * Review criteria and make recommendations for necessary adjustments after a call has closed * Accept/reject appeals requests to be implemented by ? * Keep track of program goals vs reporting * Manage the design/structure of an external review every 3 years Sorry to say this, but it is extremely difficult to comment on a document that has comments inside the text instead of on comment boxes. Could ICANN staff clear up what is the actual text to review and move those comments to comment boxes? Lots of contradicting statements there. I’ve added comments there, but it is really messy… Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 2:38 am To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated document - Small group on the role of the community - Review Function and Program Evaluation Panel Reminder – please review this document and add any comments/suggestions you may have (or respond to those provided by others). Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 10:51 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated document - Small group on the role of the community - Review Function and Program Evaluation Panel Dear all, Erika and Alan held a meeting today to review and revise their proposal on the role of the community, drawing on comments from CCWG members and discussion on the last call. You can find their updated proposal, with some new comments in the margins, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0fw... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. All are welcome to provide additional feedback or suggested edits in the Google Doc in advance of the next call. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976