User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.75.23072301 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:49:39 -0700 Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members From: Xavier Calvez To: Anne ICANN CC: Wendy Profit , Tripti Sinha , Maarten Botterman , Giovanni Seppia , "becky.burr@board.icann.org" , "csg-private@icann.org" , "lschulman@inta.org" , "Terri Agnew via cou." , Paul McGrady , Susan Payne , "Samantha Eisner" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members References: <92B79F8B-9FB2-48C3-9AF2-FD74EE39A47D@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3774615207_4015013139" MIME-Version: 1.0 --B_3774615207_4015013139 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Anne, =20 Thank you for your response below and for further clarifying your view. As = you are likely aware, the Board did not yet formally revisit its decision on= the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation 7. While many of the concerns you raised (o= r reported on behalf of others) were already part of the Board=E2=80=99s deliberat= ions, the Board wanted to make sure that its intended outreach was complete = before acting.=20 As indicated earlier, we intend to share the content of the emails that Tri= pti, you, and I have exchanged with the newly created list of former CCWG me= mbers who have consented to be included to provide visibility to the concer= ns you have shared and the responses provided. =20 We also intend to further address your points below as a response to the ab= ove list, once we will have posted the previous email communication in it (i= ncluding your email below). These points are addressed within the Board=E2=80=99s= rationale for the recommended decision relative to recommendation #7.=20 =20 Thank you again for your interest on this topic and for taking the time to = share your thoughts. The communication that is resulting from it helps to en= sure that the Board and org remain accountable to the community. =20 Best regards, =20 Xavier =20 =20 Xavier Calvez ICANN SVP Planning and CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA=20 Office phone: +1 310 301 5800 Cell phone: +1 805 312 0052 Skype: Xavier.calvez.icann =20 =20 =20 From: Anne ICANN Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM To: Xavier Calvez Cc: Wendy Profit , Tripti Sinha , Maarten Botterman , Giovanni= Seppia , "becky.burr@board.icann.org" , "csg-private@icann.org" , "lschu= lman@inta.org" , "Terri Agnew via cou." , Paul McGrady , Susan Payne Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members =20 Thanks Xavier. As I am a CSG appointed delegate in this matter, I cannot p= rovide a substantive response to your explanation. Based on the feedback re= ceived thus far on the CSG mailing list and the GNSO Council list, it appear= s the timing of this proposed Board Resolution (TODAY?) is quite concernin= g given that it modifies a Recommendation contained in the CCWG Final Report= without adequate prior consultation with the ICANN community. Significant = concerns have been raised by some, not only about procedure, but also about= the substantive effectiveness of the chosen path.=20 =20 No one is more interested than I in seeing the ICANN Grant Program move for= ward. I'm sure CSG members feel similarly. Nonetheless, legitimate concern= s have been raised about the timing and the methods chosen for modifying a C= CWG Recommendation. The actual Resolution language and the timing of the a= ction were not sent in the previous notification. Accordingly, it would s= eem appropriate to defer any final action on the proposed Resolution to allo= w for further discussion. =20 =20 Please include this comment on the list you are now establishing and I do g= ive consent for the posting of this and prior comments communicated. ( I = have already authorized Giovanni to add me to that list.) =20 Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor=20 NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com =20 =20 On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:04=E2=80=AFAM Xavier Calvez w= rote: Dear Anne, Thank you for your response to Tripti regarding the Board=E2=80=99s anticipated a= ction on the use of ICANN Accountability Mechanisms in the ICANN Grant Progr= am. This message is in response to the email you sent last week (below). I = know that Tripti and Maarten are in receipt of your email from yesterday and= will share its content with the Board. You raised several points, and I wanted to confirm that the org=E2=80=99s Grant P= rogram Core Team and Steering Committee, as well as the Board, have been car= efully considering these items.=20 While the Board has not taken its decision yet, I want to confirm to you th= at the org and the Board carefully considered and discussed the impact of th= e original recommendation on both applicants and third parties. As the org = team considered the impact of seeking a fundamental Bylaws change that alter= ed the scope of ICANN=E2=80=99s Independent Review Process and the Reconsideration= Request Process while making sure that those changes were as narrowly tail= ored to the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendations as possible, significant concerns we= re uncovered. While the amendments would equally impact applicant and third-= party access to accountability mechanisms, the contemplated amendments woul= d actually be quite narrow in impact and could create significant loopholes = for the use accountability mechanisms by either applicants or third parties = to still challenge actions within the Grant Program. The Board=E2=80=99s revised a= ction was reached after evaluating other ways to achieve as much of the CCW= G-AP=E2=80=99s intended goal as possible, while also upholding ICANN=E2=80=99s core comm= itments to accountability and to having its accountability mechanisms remain= available. The Board=E2=80=99s resolution and supporting rationale (if adopted) = will provide additional detail. As to your notes regarding the limited review opportunities that org is con= sidering within the Grant Program, to the extent such opportunities will be = built into the Program, they are currently contemplated to be only for use = by the impacted grant applicant, and not for third parties, and will be limi= ted to procedural items that could arise along the path of evaluation of the= applicant and application. They are contemplated to be lightweight mechani= sms in line with global grant program best practices, and not appeals of iss= ues such as grant amount, as you also caution against. On a procedural note, I want to confirm that the email you received was sen= t to all former CCWG-AP members. For transparency, we will be moving these c= ommunications back onto a publicly archived mailing list, and we think that= the issues raised in your email (and our response) are important parts of c= ontinuing the dialogue for the benefit of the community. Please indicate if= you are willing to be subscribed to the new publicly archived mailing list= , and if you agree to us posting your comment and our response within that l= ist.=20 Thank you for your interest on this important program, and your time and ef= forts offered to the ICANN community to make this program successful. Thank you. =20 =20 Thank you. =20 Best, =20 Xavier =20 =20 Xavier Calvez ICANN SVP Planning and CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA=20 Office phone: +1 310 301 5800 Cell phone: +1 805 312 0052 Skype: Xavier.calvez.icann =20 =20 =20 From: Anne ICANN Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:34 PM To: Wendy Profit Cc: Tripti Sinha , Maarten Botterman , Xavier Calvez , Giova= nni Seppia Subject: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members =20 Many thanks, Tripti. =20 As the former CSG Voting Member to the CCWG Auction Proceeds, I plan to for= ward this information to CSG members. My personal comment in advance of CS= G input would be to note that any new procedural review mechanism adopted by= the Board should be "lightweight" and fast. Further, it probably should = not be available to challenge the specific amount of any grant, but only for= the purpose of a procedural review of a denial of a grant. Nor would it be= advisable for anyone to be able to challenge any grant made to another par= ty. The Independent panel mechanism should be sufficient to ensure fairness= . (In this regard, it may be advisable to put the proposed limited procedur= al review mechanism out for public comment. )=20 =20 Is the Board comfortable that third parties who have not applied for a gran= t (and thus have not entered into the contractual restriction) would not hav= e grounds to challenge a grant made to someone else by availing themselves = of the existing Accountability Mechanisms? ( I think this may be the reason= that the CCWG settled on recommending a ByLaws amendment.) =20 As to whether the CCWG should be reconvened for the purpose of designing th= is procedural review, I'll seek input from the CSG on that question but am n= ot expecting any strong opinions there. =20 Thank you, Anne =20 Thank you! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor=20 NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com =20 =20 On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 6:24=E2=80=AFAM Wendy Profit wro= te: Sending on behalf of ICANN Board Chair, Tripti Sinha=E2=80=A6 =20 =20 Dear Former CCWG-AP Members, (in bcc) =20 In follow up to the update email from Xavier Calvez, I am writing to you as= Chair of the ICANN Board to update you on the Board=E2=80=99s discussions at its = workshop during ICANN77. During this workshop, the ICANN Board discussed wi= th ICANN org how to best implement Recommendation #7 of the Final Report.=20 =20 As a reminder, part of Recommendation #7 stated that ICANN=E2=80=99s existing acc= ountability mechanisms =E2=80=93 the Independent Review Process (IRP) or the Recon= sideration Process =E2=80=93 could not be used to challenge decisions made by the= Independent Applications Assessment Panel on individual applications within= the Grant Program. To allow this would add unnecessary complexity to the pr= ogram. Additionally, the total available funding for the program could also= be depleted by the cost of such challenges. The CCWG-AP (and the Board as w= ell, as indicated in our June 2022 action on the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s Final Report) a= ssumed that the best way to restrict the use of ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability mec= hanisms in this way would be to amend the ICANN Bylaws to create a =E2=80=9Ccarve= -out.=E2=80=9D This would therefore require a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment.=20 =20 After exploring this issue more in-depth, I am happy to share with you that= the Board and ICANN org identified a path that both upholds the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s= recommendation that individual application decisions should not be challen= ged through ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability mechanisms, while also keeping ICANN=E2=80=99= s accountability mechanisms unchanged within the Bylaws. The Board is planni= ng to take action on this later this month; however, I wanted to provide yo= u with a preview. The Board will direct ICANN org to use the contractual ter= ms and conditions required to apply for the Grant Program to obtain applican= t agreement that they cannot use ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability mechanisms to chal= lenge any individual decision taken on their application within the ICANN G= rant Program. This remains in line with the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation regar= ding the accountability mechanisms as well as the intention to lower complex= ity and protect the total amount of proceeds available for applicants. =20 =20 When the CCWG-AP made Recommendation #7, it also provided guidance that pro= viding limited opportunity for review of decisions within the Grant Program = might also introduce complexity, and encouraged ICANN to not make such oppo= rtunities available. However, when considering the inability for applicants = to use ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability mechanisms for individual decisions, the ICA= NN Board will also ask ICANN org to explore whether there are appropriate i= nterim opportunities within the evaluation process for applicants to ask for= a limited procedural review. The Board hopes this will enhance ICANN=E2=80=99s ac= countability to applicants, while following best practices within grant maki= ng programs. We are happy to have identified a path forward that preserves the CCWG-AP=E2=80= =99s recommendation and enhances accountability to applicants and the wider In= ternet community. The Bylaws are important to us, and we are confident that= we can keep up ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability, as set up, while at the same time = limiting the ability to challenge for individual selection decisions.=20 =20 The Board is following ICANN org=E2=80=99s implementation closely and looks forwa= rd to seeing this program launch next year. Thank you again for your time an= d efforts that went into envisioning this exciting program. The establishme= nt of the ICANN Grant Program is a testament to your commitment to the work = of the CCWG-AP and is an excellent representation of the multistakeholder mo= del in action. =20 Kind Regards, =20 Tripti Sinha Chair, ICANN Board of Directors =20 --B_3774615207_4015013139 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Anne,

 

Thank you for your response below and for further clarifyi= ng your view. As you are likely aware, the Board did not yet formally revis= it its decision on the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation 7. While many of the concerns you raised (or reported on behalf of others)= were already part of the Board=E2=80=99s deliberations, the Board wanted t= o make sure that its intended outreach was complete before acting. 

As indicated earlier, we intend to share the content of th= e emails that Tripti, you, and I have exchanged with the newly created list= of former CCWG members who have consented to be included to provide visibility to the concerns you have shared and the = responses provided.

 

We also intend to further address your points below as a r= esponse to the above list, once we will have posted the previous email comm= unication in it (including your email below). These points are addressed within the Board=E2=80=99s rationale for the re= commended decision relative to recommendation #7. 

 

Thank you again for your interest on this topic and for ta= king the time to share your thoughts. The communication that is resulting f= rom it helps to ensure that the Board and org remain accountable to the community.

 

Best regards,

 =

Xavier=

 =

 =

Xavier Calvez=

ICANN<= /p>

SVP Planning and CFO<= /span>

12025 Waterfront Driv= e, Suite 300

Los Angeles, Californ= ia 90094

USA <= span style=3D"color:black">

Office phone:<= /u> +1 310 301 5800

Cell phone: +1 805 312 0052

Skype: Xavier.calvez.icann

 

 

 

From= : Anne ICANN <an= neicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM
To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org>
Cc: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org>, Tripti Sinha <tr= ipti.sinha@board.icann.org>, Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@boa= rd.icann.org>, Giovanni Seppia <giovanni.seppia@icann.org>, "= becky.burr@board.icann.org" <becky.burr@board.icann.org>, "= csg-private@icann.org" <csg-private@icann.org>, "lschulman@inta.org" <lschulma= n@inta.org>, "Terri Agnew via cou." <council@gnso.icann.org= >, Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>, Susan Payne <susan.pa= yne@comlaude.com>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP M= embers

 

Thanks Xavier.  As I am a CSG appointed delegat= e in this matter, I cannot provide a substantive response to your explanati= on.  Based on the feedback received thus far on the CSG mailing list a= nd the GNSO Council list, it appears the timing of this proposed Board Resolution (TODAY?)  is quite concerning given= that it modifies a Recommendation contained in the CCWG Final Report witho= ut adequate prior consultation with the ICANN community.  Significant = concerns have been raised by some, not only about procedure, but also about the substantive effectiveness of the chose= n path.

 

No one is more interested than I in seeing the ICANN= Grant Program move forward.  I'm sure CSG members feel similarly.&nbs= p; Nonetheless, legitimate concerns have been raised about the timing and t= he methods chosen for modifying a CCWG Recommendation.   The actual Resolution language and the timing of the action were not= sent in the previous notification.    Accordingly, it would seem= appropriate to defer any final action on the proposed Resolution to allow = for further discussion.  

 

Please include this comment on the list you are now = establishing and I do give consent for the posting of  this and prior = comments  communicated.  ( I have already authorized Giovanni to = add me to that list.)

 

Thank you,

Anne


Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024

 

 

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:04=E2=80=AFAM Xavier Calve= z <xavier.calvez@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Anne,

Thank you for your response to Tripti = regarding the Board=E2=80=99s anticipated action on the use of ICANN Accoun= tability Mechanisms in the ICANN Grant Program. This message is in response to the email you sent last week (below). I kno= w that Tripti and Maarten are in receipt of your email from yesterday and w= ill share its content with the Board.

You raised several points, and I = wanted to confirm that the org=E2=80=99s Grant Program Core Team and S= teering Committee, as well as the Board, have been carefully considering these items. 

While the Board has not taken its = ;decision yet, I want to confirm to you that the org and the Boar= d carefully considered and discussed the impact of the original recommendation on both applicants and third parties. As the org t= eam considered the impact of seeking a fundamental Bylaws change that alter= ed the scope of ICANN=E2=80=99s Independent Review Process and the Reconsid= eration Request Process while making sure that those changes were as narrowly tailored to the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s reco= mmendations as possible, significant concerns were uncovered. While th= e amendments would equally impact applicant and third-party access to accou= ntability mechanisms, the contemplated amendments would actually be quite narrow in impact and could create significant loop= holes for the use accountability mechanisms by either applicants or third p= arties to still challenge actions within the Grant Program. The Board=E2=80= =99s revised action was reached after evaluating other ways to achieve as much of the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s intended goal as po= ssible, while also upholding ICANN=E2=80=99s core commitments to accountabi= lity and to having its accountability mechanisms remain available. The Boar= d=E2=80=99s resolution and supporting rationale (if adopted) will provide additional detail.

As to your notes regarding the limited= review opportunities that org is considering within the Grant Program, to = the extent such opportunities will be built into the Program, they are currently contemplated to be only for use= by the impacted grant applicant, and not for third parties, and will be li= mited to procedural items that could arise along the path of evaluation of = the applicant and application. They are contemplated to be lightweight mechanisms in line with global grant pr= ogram best practices, and not appeals of issues such as grant amount, as yo= u also caution against.

On a procedural note, I want to confir= m that the email you received was sent to all former CCWG-AP members. For t= ransparency, we will be moving these communications back onto a publicly archived mailing list, and we think that the issues r= aised in your email (and our response) are important parts of continuing th= e dialogue for the benefit of the community.  Please indicate if you a= re willing to be subscribed to the new publicly archived mailing list, and if you agree to us posting your commen= t and our response within that list. 

Thank you for your interest on this im= portant program, and your time and efforts offered to the ICANN community t= o make this program successful.

Thank you.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Best,

 

Xavier

 

 

Xavier Calvez

ICANN

SVP Planning and CFO

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90094

USA 

Office phone: +1 310 301 5800

Cell phone: +1 805 312 0052

Skype: Xavier.calvez.icann

 

 

 

From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmai= l.com>
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:34 PM
To: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org>
Cc: Tripti Sinha <tripti.sinha@board.icann.org>, Maarten Botterman = <= maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Xavier Calvez <xavier.ca= lvez@icann.org>, Giovanni Seppia <giovanni.seppia@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Membe= rs

 

Many thanks, Tripti.  


As the former CSG Voting Member to the CCWG Auction Proceeds, I plan to for= ward this information to  CSG members.  My personal comment in ad= vance of CSG input would be to note that any new procedural review mechanis= m adopted by the Board should be "lightweight" and fast.  Further,  it probably should not be available to chal= lenge the specific amount of any grant, but only for the purpose of a proce= dural review of a denial of a grant.  Nor would it be advisable for an= yone to be able to challenge any grant made to another party.  The Independent panel mechanism should be sufficient = to ensure fairness.  (In this regard, it may be advisable to put the p= roposed limited procedural review mechanism out for public comment. ) =

 

Is the Board comfortable that third parties who have not applied f= or a grant (and thus have not entered into the contractual restriction) wou= ld not have grounds to challenge a grant made to someone else by availing themselves of the existing Accountability= Mechanisms?  ( I think this may be the reason that the CCWG settled o= n recommending a ByLaws amendment.)

 

As to whether the CCWG should be reconvened for the purpose of des= igning this procedural review, I'll seek input from the CSG on that questio= n but am not expecting any strong opinions there.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

Thank you!

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024

 

 

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 6:24=E2=80=AFAM Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org= > wrote:

Sendi= ng on behalf of ICANN Board Chair, Tripti Sinha=E2=80=A6

 = ;

 = ;

Dear Former CCWG-AP Members, (in bcc)

 

In follow up to the update email from Xavier Calvez, I am writing = to you as Chair of the ICANN Board to update you on the Board=E2=80=99s dis= cussions at its workshop during ICANN77. During this workshop, the ICANN Board discussed with ICANN org how to best implem= ent Recommendation #7 of the Final Report. 

 

As a reminder, part of Recommendation #7 stated that ICANN=E2=80= =99s existing accountability mechanisms =E2=80=93 the Independent Review Pr= ocess (IRP) or the Reconsideration Process =E2=80=93 could not be used to challenge decisions made by the Independent Applications Assess= ment Panel on individual applications within the Grant Program. To allow th= is would add unnecessary complexity to the program. Additionally, the total= available funding for the program could also be depleted by the cost of such challenges. The CCWG-AP (and th= e Board as well, as indicated in our June 2022 action on the CCWG-AP=E2=80= =99s Final Report) assumed that the best way to restrict the use of ICANN= =E2=80=99s accountability mechanisms in this way would be to amend the ICANN Bylaws to create a =E2=80=9Ccarve-out.=E2=80=9D This= would therefore require a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment.

 

After exploring this issue more in-depth, I am happy to share with= you that the Board and ICANN org identified a path that both upholds the C= CWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation that individual application decisions should not be challenged through ICANN=E2=80=99s acc= ountability mechanisms, while also keeping ICANN=E2=80=99s accountability m= echanisms unchanged within the Bylaws. The Board is planning to take action= on this later this month; however, I wanted to provide you with a preview. The Board will direct ICANN org to use the con= tractual terms and conditions required to apply for the Grant Program to ob= tain applicant agreement that they cannot use ICANN=E2=80=99s accountabilit= y mechanisms to challenge any individual decision taken on their application within the ICANN Grant Program. This r= emains in line with the CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation regarding the acco= untability mechanisms as well as the intention to lower complexity and prot= ect the total amount of proceeds available for applicants. 

 

When the CCWG-AP made Recommendation #7, it also provided guidance= that providing limited opportunity for review of decisions within the Gran= t Program might also introduce complexity, and encouraged ICANN to not make such opportunities available. However, wh= en considering the inability for applicants to use ICANN=E2=80=99s accounta= bility mechanisms for individual decisions, the ICANN Board will also ask I= CANN org to explore whether there are appropriate interim opportunities within the evaluation process for applicants to ask = for a limited procedural review. The Board hopes this will enhance ICANN=E2= =80=99s accountability to applicants, while following best practices within= grant making programs.

We are happy to have identified a path forward that preserves the = CCWG-AP=E2=80=99s recommendation and enhances accountability to applicants = and the wider Internet community. The Bylaws are important to us, and we are confident that we can keep up ICANN=E2=80= =99s accountability, as set up, while at the same time limiting the ability= to challenge for individual selection decisions.

 

The Board is following ICANN org=E2=80=99s implementation closely = and looks forward to seeing this program launch next year. Thank you again = for your time and efforts that went into envisioning this exciting program. The establishment of the ICANN Grant Program is a t= estament to your commitment to the work of the CCWG-AP and is an excellent = representation of the multistakeholder model in action.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Tripti Sinha

Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

 

--B_3774615207_4015013139--