[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
Erika Mann
erika at erikamann.com
Mon Aug 5 15:37:26 UTC 2019
I assume that this can be done Elliot. I will check with Marika, Emily and
Joke to see how this this can be done.
Erika
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Elliot Noss <enoss at tucows.com> wrote:
> For clarity, I wasn’t questioning the meaning but rather correcting the
> record. Apologies if this came out otherwise.
>
> I would be very interested in transcripts of discussions where this was
> moved on from if it is not too much trouble. Thanks.
>
> EN
>
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
>
> Elliot - well, you have been absent too during rounds of discussions and
> we moved on. In all fairness, we're re-engaging with his topic because you
> requested it and we're doing it therefore. Let's focus on the future and
> let's try to solve the remaining issues and let's not start to question the
> meaning behind individual sentences.
>
> Thank you,
> Erika
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 5:11 PM Elliot Noss <enoss at tucows.com> wrote:
>
>> I STRONGLY reject this being presented as “recent”:
>>
>> "In recent CCWG discussions, some members have advocated…..”.
>>
>> I have been clear and unequivocal in my view on this since the CCWG first
>> met. Most often, most participants were supportive of this when raised.
>> Vocally and regularly.
>>
>> Numerous times this has been taking off the table when documents are
>> prepared and then presented as new when I re-raise it. This has now
>> happened too many times for me to be comfortable. To me, this has been in
>> front of the ICANN board members of the CCWG for nearly two years with no
>> pushback. This is the obvious model. It is the one used by CIRA and SIDN
>> and Nominet. It is used by Nominet, iirc, after they tried third parties
>> and moved away from them. We have heard this presented by their experts. A
>> long time ago. With us asking questions over multiple sessions.
>>
>> I would like to be clearly on the record. This has always been on the
>> table. It has always been supported by most voices in the CCWG and some
>> people are uncomfortable with it. I respect that.
>>
>> A method for resolving this point need be established. We could have had
>> straw man polls that would have determined it many times already. It should
>> have been settled over a year ago. It seems to me that the process is
>> looking for a means of killing it by excluding it from documents and
>> looking for technicalities (the board won’t allow it). Let’s have a
>> straightforward discussion on this point and settle it.
>>
>> Independence in this case is independence from submissions asking for
>> money. That is simply not a high bar.
>>
>> (And I am a bit crusty this morning after going through another round of
>> “you support nazis……” with the recent 8 chan nonsense so apologies if the
>> above is harsh)
>>
>> EN
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Emily
>>
>> *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).
>>
>> Hello All.
>>
>> Please find included below the notes and action items from the CCWG
>> Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 31 July 2019 (14 UTC).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Joke Braeken
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *ACTION ITEMS*
>>
>>
>> - *#1: *
>>
>> 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
>>
>> - *#2: *
>>
>> 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
>>
>> - *#3: *
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> - *#4: *
>>
>> 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
>> - *#5: *
>>
>> CCWG members are encouraged to review Sam’s memo ahead of the next
>> meeting.
>>
>> - *#6: *
>>
>> Sam will revise the memo about the individual appeal. Alan, possibly
>> other community members will weigh in over email regarding Sam’s proposal
>>
>> *NOTES*
>>
>> 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
>> C: foundation
>> 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:
>>
>>
>> - *Independence*
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Alan:
>> 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?
>>
>> Elliot:
>> 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.
>>
>> Judith:
>> If we outsource, and take into account what the Board has said, there is
>> not much difference between A and B
>>
>> Becky:
>> 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.
>>
>> Jonathan:
>> 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.
>>
>> Becky:
>> 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
>>
>> Erika:
>> 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.
>>
>> Becky:
>> 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.
>>
>> Alan:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>>
>> - #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.
>>
>> Erika:
>> 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.
>>
>> Becky:
>> 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.
>>
>> Maureen:
>> 2 evaluation groups, that increases the potential for conflict.
>>
>> Alan:
>>
>> - 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
>>
>>
>> Becky:
>>
>> - 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
>>
>>
>> Erika:
>> Review cycle. Audit is part of it
>>
>> Action item:
>>
>> - #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
>>
>>
>> Erika:
>> 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?
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - #5: Group members are invited to review Sam’s memo ahead of the
>> next meeting.
>>
>>
>> Alan:
>>
>> - Who does it go to?
>> - Applicant to receive rationale for rejection of an application?
>>
>>
>> Sam:
>> 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.
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - #6: Sam will revise the proposal about the individual appeal. Alan,
>> possibly other community members will weigh in over email regarding Sam’s
>> proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. *AOB*
>>
>> Scheduling of the next call.
>> 14 August 2019 | 14 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Joke Braeken
>> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>> 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=>
>> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=b1Ko6AwKo6AOTAtyRGo6fd7KusFXnVKN4h5sjWWwevo&s=_D0NodmUvrNSLQK1us6elk2FVGfsjgHflaOR-t4Dm_w&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 at 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190805/7646c2f6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list