[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 17 02:21:05 UTC 2019

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 

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.


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 at 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.


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.
>John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet 
>for Dummies",
>Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>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.

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list