[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
emily.barabas at icann.org
Mon Aug 5 14:32:07 UTC 2019
As a follow-up to action item 1 from the call on 31 July, the following question has been sent on behalf of the CCWG to the ICANN Board for consideration:
In recent CCWG discussions, some members have advocated for a model in which a panel of ICANN community members evaluates funding applications and selects recipients for funding. From the perspective of these members, it is possible for a panel to be comprised of ICANN community members and also be completely independent. This continues to be a topic that the CCWG is considering with different members expressing different views. Is the ICANN Board willing to consider the possibility of a panel comprised of community members, taking into consideration legal and fiduciary responsibilities and conflict of interest requirements?
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 31 July 2019 at 18:49
To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
Please find included below the notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2019+Meetings.
Leadership team to formulate - as soon as possible - a question to the Board, asking whether the Board could consider a situation where the evaluation would be done by community members, and potentially outside efforts
Small group to be set up, to clarify the criteria for independence. Stepped forward: Marylin Cade, Maureen Hilyard, Vanda Scartezini, Ching Chiao, Thato Mfikwe, Alan Greenberg, Jonathan Robinson, Elliot Noss
Erika and Alan to look into the question whether we can strengthen the role of the community further, beyond whether what Alan and Erika originally envisaged, and based on the feedback received during the public comment period.
clarifications to be provided to ICANN Board liaisons
* Alan and Erika to clean up the current text. See action item #3.
* Leadership team with support from staff will review the accountability / review mechanisms, incl. audit. See how they overlap with the proposal, if at all
CCWG members are encouraged to review Sam’s memo ahead of the next meeting.
Sam will revise the memo about the individual appeal. Alan, possibly other community members will weigh in over email regarding Sam’s proposal
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.
2. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s)
4 mechanisms were created: looking at various scenarios that are already available, and pick the best.
A: inhouse model
B: inhouse + other entity
D: fund outsourced to other entity
D was ruled out, C was favoured less.
Public comment: quite a few comments favoured C. Different concerns raised about independence.
Erika favours to recommend only 1 single mechanism, and to make a recommendation to the board. Alternatively, we could make a hierarchy and present it to the Board.
Once a decision about the mechanism was taken, the next group needs to do the work on how this shall function. To help them, we have established guidelines: They formulate some principles.
You can find the graphics here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Graphics
And the summary of inputs from ICANN Board and Org are here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/FAQs
Emily runs through the e-mail sent by Joke to the list, on behalf of the co-chairs. Summary of the main topics:
Topic discussed a lot in the past, and also the Board and ICANN Org provided input.
See Q&A, 2 graphics as shared in Marrakech (division responsibilities & common characteristics)
* Role independent panel? who would sit on this panel?
ICANN Board spoke already about this. Info included in the FAQ, and recent email exchanges from Board Liaisons to the group
* Relevant costs linked to implementing the mechanisms
See email sent to ICANN org
* Mechanism D and differences with B
Mechanism D was taken off the table. Leadership team does not want to re-open the discussion
* Role of the ICANN community
As part of the agenda for today. Proposal by Alan and Erika
Focusing too much on the names of the mechanisms, instead of on the substance, on the characteristics.
If we have a foundation, what are the criteria to make sure it is indeed independent?
Critical comments on the view of the CCWG. they assumed ICANN org to take the decisions. However, Independent panel composed by the community. Seems there is strong consensus with the CCWG for mechanism A where the independent panel is ICANN community. That would require a level of independence both operationally, and in terms of COI (similar to NomCom). Suggests to focus on that view.
If we outsource, and take into account what the Board has said, there is not much difference between A and B
No follow-up conversations happened so far with the rest of the Board.
Independence issue: the Board finds it absolutely critical that the panel that evaluates and selects winners and losers must be completely independent. Indepent of ICANN org, the Board, and the vested interests in the community itself. Board has fiduciary obligations and needs to ensure ICANN stays within its mission. Administrative tasks for ICANN Board. Community has a big role in talking about the priorities, the training for the independent panel etc.
Conflict between Becky and Elliot his view?
Elliot thinks what Becky says is correct. It does not contradict his view of community involvement. A community group is scoring and choosing proposals. There should be no COI with those proposals. Principles of independence should apply. As an example: how NomCom deals with conflicts.
Members of the community group can help promote, but step out as soon as there is a COI.
NomCom is not independent, in the sense that its members are drawn from the various parts of the community, including people who are very active in ICANN processes, and have vested interests in outcomes
Community is stretched thin. High workload. Either the community is the evaluator, or the community has an oversight function. Latter is more appropriate in Erika’s view.
The Board sees a very important role for the community. However, icann community members in the selection and evaluation panel makes independence extremely difficult to achieve.
Role of the community is critical, in an advisory Board.
Evaluation the applications should be done by professionals. Concerns relying on a volunteer force.
Summary by Erika:
* Evaluation by community members, and potentially outside efforts: is the Board going to even consider this option? If not, it is clear what we need to do.
* Bigger role of the community (Alan was working on a proposal) Can we strengthen the model of the current advisory panel and the overall role of the community.
* We need to review the criteria of what we refer to as independence. To be included in the guidelines. E.g. PTI Board, is not completely independent. Whatever Board will be constructed (A and C), the role of the completely independent Board members will be higher than the role of potential ICANN Board members who sit on this Board too.
* #1: Evaluation by community members, and potentially outside efforts: is the Board going to even consider this option? Leadership team to formulate a question to the Board, asap.
* #2: Small group to be set up, to clarify the criteria for independence.
* #3: Question whether we can strengthen the role of the community further, beyond whether what Alan and erika envisages, and based on the feedback received during the public comment period.
2. Proposal – Role of the Community (see attached updated draft Final Report – pages 21-22)
Proposal presented by Alan, that stands regardless of what the selection panel is.
What mechanism do we use, once the programme is running, to make sure the programme stays on track? Mid-course corrections might be needed.
Called an “Advisory Board”. Some say it is a working group, or a committee. Arbitrary name.
Role of the Advisory Board (AB):
* Consist of people nominated by SO/ACs. ASO or SSAC might not have a lot of interest, so maybe a subset of the SO/ACs
* Primary function is to do an annual review, starting in year 2. Looking at what projects were approved, how does it map with what we envisaged, are the projects successful?
* The group could report to the ICANN Board, the mechanism itself, and to the ICANN community.
Programme Evaluation Panel (PEP):
* See organisational reviews. Done every 3 years
* Taking input from Advisory Board and others. Are major shifts needed? Do we need to change the mechanism?
Project Evaluation Panel (PEP) = Group doing the actual selection
Assessment = determine how well the projects are working
Why are both AB and PEP needed?
One is on an annual basis, looking at a low level. Minor changes, tweaks. The first group will act as a sounding board to the PEP. The second group is looking at matters at a much higher level.
asking for confirmation from the group about whether this proposal is something that could be supported by the group in principle. No comments were raised. the group would keep the conversation going.
Understands the different roles. But if things are going drastically wrong, the AB would notice that. And that might be the trigger for a different process. Concern why we need both the AB and the PEP.
The AB would be able to interact with the independent evaluation panel and provide input in midst of evaluation: that is extremely worrisome. Inappropriate for the AB to develop the materials that go out to applicants. Training etc for those doing the evaluation.
Extreme danger of affecting outcome of processes in an ad hoc way, which raises the potential for disputes.
2 evaluation groups, that increases the potential for conflict.
* Interaction between evaluation group and advisory Board: From the discussion in Marrakech, a proposal was raised where the PEP could bring a specific project to AB and ask for opinions. This raised strong red flags.
Can the evaluators ask for clarifications somewhere? That is what we were looking into
* Instead of a 3-year review, having it triggered by the AB
* Role of an audit. We need to understand the full range of accountability things that are going on here. We cannot have an audit doing the same thing that the programme evaluation panel would be doing
Review cycle. Audit is part of it
* #4: clarifications to be provided to ICANN Board liaisons
* Alan and Erika to clean up the current text.
* Leadership team with support from staff will review the accountability / review mechanisms, incl. Audit. See how they overlap with the proposal, if at all
No operational audit at ICANN. Financial audit ICANN does have
3. Discussion of Individual Appeal Mechanism (see attached memo from ICANN Legal)
Introduction by Sam:
If there were to be a separate appeals process, it would have to be simple. Other grant making organisations have also a lightweight process. Appeals are not about the individual judgement of the panel. It needs to be based on certain grounds. E.g. improper criteria applied, lack of compliance with published process, COI etc.
Do not allow individual grant applicants, and they should not use ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. What will give them a chance to challenge decisions? Due process?
* #5: Group members are invited to review Sam’s memo ahead of the next meeting.
* Who does it go to?
* Applicant to receive rationale for rejection of an application?
Final appeals process needs to match with the process we have. Maybe not all grounds would apply. Who the evaluator is? These are appeals to the panel itself, or a person that oversees the panel. It is at the implementation level. How is the panel administered? A person responsible for coordinating the work by the panel? Into the panel decision making process.
* #6: Sam will revise the proposal about the individual appeal. Alan, possibly other community members will weigh in over email regarding Sam’s proposal
Scheduling of the next call.
14 August 2019 | 14 UTC
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=b1Ko6AwKo6AOTAtyRGo6fd7KusFXnVKN4h5sjWWwevo&s=hOunqTV_R_nhhAfTZK8LVgQKvX8UKlfvp8nRh_H0-h8&e=>
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=b1Ko6AwKo6AOTAtyRGo6fd7KusFXnVKN4h5sjWWwevo&s=s8SwJvIEhDjhkWGWtqZuJ-1M9jGJgawvOmRfSozYCB0&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds