Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough". Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not. Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes! I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection. All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $. Alan At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile. Maureen On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse. I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee can’t agree and a proposal doesn’t have full support but those discussions are not made public. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Dear All, Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date: 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 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 feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed. This will be on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of Wednesday’s meeting. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, " 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 proposal for individual appeals mechanism My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote: It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation. 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>
Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Hi Erika I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> < mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com> < mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now. Erika Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> < mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism? Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'? Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> < mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com> < mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote: "That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program." End quote. This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled. The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants. My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" . I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind... RD On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> < mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should: - be VERY light weight; - there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission - go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final; - the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been suggested). Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds for that period on projects that were better! As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the program with little positive outcome. That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program. Alan At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote: Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations @Sylvia Cadena< mailto:sylvia@apnic.net < mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over? I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea. R's, John At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote: Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August. It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g. * Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN? * I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com<mailto: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 [jl.ly]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>> ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>> ________________________________ 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>> ________________________________ 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=NtlalUO1dc050fATd3dglODZEUvKxKeK3lp0V8f0dH0%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>> ________________________________ 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=2IR8vhCFj3y5hLGMGrqfkripJI4hvIQJArmPDf%2FyBE4%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695066770&sdata=N0fQyw2PDXi1E3jJAHnCzJ3RK0XNSY7msuFz%2Fb8p6vI%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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> < 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> < 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) 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.
If there are comprehensive guidelines published to assist applicants, this would negate much of the disagreements. It is impossible to please everyone. Even underserved communities can have good grant writers. Providing "meaningful" feedback on proposals is very subjective and is in my opinion a very slippery slope. RD On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 17:08 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough".
Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not.
Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes!
I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection.
All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $.
Alan
At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile.
Maureen
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse.
I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee can’t agree and a proposal doesn’t have full support but those discussions are not made public.
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: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com >, " erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Dear All,
Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date:
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 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 feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed.
This will be on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of Wednesday’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com
, "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com
Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Hi Erika I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process
Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com < mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com <Judith@jhellerstein.com>> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com < mailto:erika@erikamann.com <erika@erikamann.com>>> wrote: I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now.
Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com < mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com <marilynscade@hotmail.com>>> wrote: Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism?
Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'?
Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed?
------------------------------
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org < mailto:vanda@scartezini.org <vanda@scartezini.org>>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com <rudi.daniel@gmail.com>>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com < mailto:johnl@taugh.com <johnl@taugh.com>>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings
On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com <rudi.daniel@gmail.com>>> wrote: "That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program." End quote.
This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled. The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants. My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" .
I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind... RD
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca < mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> wrote: I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should:
- be VERY light weight; - there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission - go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final; - the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been suggested).
Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds for that period on projects that were better!
As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the program with little positive outcome.
That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program.
Alan
At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations @Sylvia Cadena< mailto:sylvia@apnic.net <sylvia@apnic.net> < mailto:sylvia@apnic.net <sylvia@apnic.net>>> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over?
I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea.
R's, John
At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote:
Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August.
It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g.
* Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN?
* I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no.
Regards, John Levine,johnl@iecc.com < mailto:johnl@iecc.com <johnl@iecc.com>>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly [jl.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>
------------------------------
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>
------------------------------
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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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 <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>
------------------------------
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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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 <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=NtlalUO1dc050fATd3dglODZEUvKxKeK3lp0V8f0dH0%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>
------------------------------
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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=2IR8vhCFj3y5hLGMGrqfkripJI4hvIQJArmPDf%2FyBE4%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>) 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...> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695066770&sdata=N0fQyw2PDXi1E3jJAHnCzJ3RK0XNSY7msuFz%2Fb8p6vI%3D&reserved=0%20[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>>). 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 <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 <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) [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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Rudolph - such guidance will have to be written by the ‘implementation team’. This team will follow our work and will translate our decisions/guidance/guidelines into concrete operational processes. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:39 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
If there are comprehensive guidelines published to assist applicants, this would negate much of the disagreements. It is impossible to please everyone. Even underserved communities can have good grant writers.
Providing "meaningful" feedback on proposals is very subjective and is in my opinion a very slippery slope.
RD
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 17:08 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough".
Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not.
Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes!
I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection.
All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $.
Alan
At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile.
Maureen
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse.
I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee can’t agree and a proposal doesn’t have full support but those discussions are not made public.
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: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com >, "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Dear All,
Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date:
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 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 feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed.
This will be on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of Wednesday’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com>, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com >, "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com> wrote:
It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com
Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM
To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Hi Erika
I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process
Best
Judith
Sent from my iPhone
Judith@jhellerstein.com < mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com>
Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com < mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote:
I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now.
Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com < mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism?
Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'?
Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed?
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org < mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM
To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com < mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues
Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPad
Sorry for any typos and misspellings
On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote:
"That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program."
End quote.
This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled.
The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants.
My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" .
I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind...
RD
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca < mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal
process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should:
- be VERY light weight;
- there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission
- go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final;
- the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected.
Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been
suggested).
Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they
may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high
benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds
for that period on projects that were better!
As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process,
and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much
everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the
program with little positive outcome.
That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should
be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the
annul review of the program.
Alan
At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run
such grant making organizations @Sylvia
Cadena< mailto:sylvia@apnic.net < mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some
factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over?
I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up
an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so
no, we are not. It's a bad idea.
R's,
John
At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote:
Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual
appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review.
Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of
the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August.
It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important
questions open, e.g.
* Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split
the cost, or
is it all ICANN?
* I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants
who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of
obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not
identifying any process failure other than saying no.
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 [jl.ly] < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>
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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>) and the website Terms of
Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>). 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 < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>
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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>). 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 < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>
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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]>). 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] and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org] 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] and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org] 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) [icann.org] and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org] 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.
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.
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.
Good discussion. Very much agree that the more clarity upfront, the less difficulties in the evaluation itself, the smoother the ride. It is really a set of guidelines to give to the independent evaluators at the start of their job, as we do not want to interfere with their independent assessments/selection. After a round we can always review whether the guidelines have been “sufficiently clear” and adapt the guidelines, prior to a next round, when that is deemed important – just not while the evaluation is underway. Also agree we need to be careful with feedback in not making ourselves vulnerable for appeals. I have seen evaluations in which the comments/feedback is pretty much standardized to capture: “not good enough” or just “not good enough to make the cut for funding”. Thinking out, loud ;-) Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 01:40 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism If there are comprehensive guidelines published to assist applicants, this would negate much of the disagreements. It is impossible to please everyone. Even underserved communities can have good grant writers. Providing "meaningful" feedback on proposals is very subjective and is in my opinion a very slippery slope. RD On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 17:08 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough". Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not. Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes! I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection. All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $. Alan At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile. Maureen On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia@apnic.net <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> > wrote: The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse. I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee can’t agree and a proposal doesn’t have full support but those discussions are not made public. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation <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 <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> " < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com <mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com> >, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> " <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> > Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Dear All, Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date: 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 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 feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed. This will be on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of Wednesday’s meeting. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> " < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com <mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com> >, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> " <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> > Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> >, " 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 proposal for individual appeals mechanism My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr@hwglaw.com <mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com> > wrote: It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>
Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> > Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> >, CCWG Auction Proceeds < <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Hi Erika I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> < <mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> < <mailto:erika@erikamann.com> mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now. Erika Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> < <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism? Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'? Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed? _____ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> 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 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> < <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> < <mailto:johnl@taugh.com> mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < <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 proposal for individual appeals mechanism Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote: "That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program." End quote. This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled. The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants. My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" . I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind... RD On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should: - be VERY light weight; - there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission - go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final; - the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been suggested). Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds for that period on projects that were better! As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the program with little positive outcome. That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program. Alan At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote: Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations @Sylvia Cadena< <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> mailto:sylvia@apnic.net < <mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over? I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea. R's, John At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote: Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August. It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g. * Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN? * I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com <mailto:johnl@iecc.com> < <mailto:johnl@iecc.com> mailto:johnl@iecc.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3...> https://jl.ly <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3...> [jl.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data...> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data...> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data...> > _____ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> > _____ 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...> https://www.icann.org/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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >). 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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> > _____ 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...> https://www.icann.org/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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >). 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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=NtlalUO1dc050fATd3dglODZEUvKxKeK3lp0V8f0dH0%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> > _____ 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...> https://www.icann.org/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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695056760&sdata=2IR8vhCFj3y5hLGMGrqfkripJI4hvIQJArmPDf%2FyBE4%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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...> < <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695066770&sdata=N0fQyw2PDXi1E3jJAHnCzJ3RK0XNSY7msuFz%2Fb8p6vI%3D&reserved=0 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....> >). 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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> 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> 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...> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> 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> 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...> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> 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...> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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. _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Erika Mann -
maarten.botterman＠board.icann.org -
Rudolph Daniel