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

Sat Aug 17 11:23:49 UTC 2019

I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now. 

Erika 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism? 
> 
> Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'? 
> 
> Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed?
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM
> To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> Cc: John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com>; CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
>  
> Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues
> 
> 
> Vanda Scartezini
> Sent from my iPad
> Sorry for any typos and misspellings
> 
> On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> "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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190817/36b590e0/attachment-0001.html>