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

[Rudolph Daniel]

"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 at 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 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.
>
> 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 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
> >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/20190816/df71a222/attachment-0001.html>