Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both. I agree.. that's a given.. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:50 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
My fault for assuming everyone had been at the same meeting. Although not actually stated we had been talking about the volunteers from the various community groups on the CCWG. And Alan's suggestion that community volunteers would not have the same commitment as paid experts. Somehow that's understandable.. but is it right?
No, of course not.
I think I'm a member of the community, but I've done paid work for ICANN. Evaluating grant proposals is a significant amount of work, so you pay people to do it, no matter where they come from. It doesn't have to be a vast amount of money but it has to be enough that people treat it as a commitment.
You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Trying to respond to the inputs recently on the independence topic re the "panel". First, yes, so helpful to have the direct links to the transcripts. Thanks to staff for that always excellent and helpful and immediate assistance! Just a possible thought, but if others find it diversionary, I can understand. It occurs to me that perhaps I have been talking about one thing, and others are talking about something else and I assumed co existence of both, but perhaps no one else did. I do not speak for anyone else, or interpret, only to interpret myself. So, I asked myself: What is an Independent Panel? Is it different from an Advisory Group/Group of Advisors from the ICANN community? Are both needed in both Mechanism A and Mechanism C. I think the two functions are different; qualifications are different; conflicts of interest issues are different; and compensation is very different. I prefer a independent panel who does evaluations, provides recommendations, and is paid for that work, which is quite considerable in time and in accountability, documentation needed, etc. with an advisory group or group of advisors from the community of ICANN who meet perhaps twice a year, at an ICANN meeting, and are focused on a more strategic overlook about the ecosystem challenges and opportunities for how the Auction Proceeds funds are being applied and making suggestions, which may or may not be recommendations for a course correction, or a different approach to a next traunch, depending on how they are accepted by the Board. [and no, I don't think the Board should provide that last function, but should receive the advice and then make decisions on informed advice from the community, and from the Mechanism.] Independent panelists: should have experience and expertise in grant making, assessments, tracking and evaluations of grants. Such evaluations should be commensorate with the level of funding awarded. Should be paid; have clearly defined conflict of interest statements; including any other clients where there could be a conflict of interest. Should not work for, or be part time consultants to ICANN Org. In Mechanism A, would be a challenge to have true independence, as all contracting is tightly controlled and overseen by ICANN Org, so as hiring and firing and compensation/continuance on the Independence Panel is in hands of ICANN Org, being "independent" is quite challenging. The paycheck and benefits come from ICANN Org, even if they are actually reimbursements from the Auction fund into ICANN Org. I struggle to find any independence in that approach and I believe that others from the CSG who are in participant status agree. In Mechanism C, the Independent Panel would be retained by the Foundation, funded as part of the overhead of the cost of the Mechanism. Independence is built into the Mechanism -- a new and independent foundation. Even though the Foundation has one or two ex officio board members from ICANN, and a required reporting back mechanism. I think that both should exist for both Mechanisms -- and with different requirements, and accountability. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 1:57 AM To: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC). You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both. I agree.. that's a given.. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:50 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com<mailto:johnl@iecc.com>> wrote:
My fault for assuming everyone had been at the same meeting. Although not actually stated we had been talking about the volunteers from the various community groups on the CCWG. And Alan's suggestion that community volunteers would not have the same commitment as paid experts. Somehow that's understandable.. but is it right?
No, of course not. I think I'm a member of the community, but I've done paid work for ICANN. Evaluating grant proposals is a significant amount of work, so you pay people to do it, no matter where they come from. It doesn't have to be a vast amount of money but it has to be enough that people treat it as a commitment. You avoid conflict of interest in the obvious way -- you can send in proposals or you can evaluate them, but you can't do both. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com<mailto:johnl@iecc.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ca267c8165a4c3ef88208d71a33080d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637006678803148039&sdata=wuf9fQsmZpf8EF0SqiXPHzedPWhv36UQsf5VGBIpPqo%3D&reserved=0>
participants (2)
-
Marilyn Cade -
Maureen Hilyard