[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Next steps re. Selection of mechanism and timeline to finalize work by ICANN66

[Sam Lanfranco]

Marika, ccWG colleagues and ICANN staff,

Marika, thanks for your "Next Step" summary.

I will be on a road trip from California to Oregon on the 18^th so I 
will miss that important call. I would like to single out several points 
discussed in yesterday’s meeting. There are several “construction sites” 
in the process for the allocation of the auction proceeds and it is 
important that they be kept distinct and separate. They are not all to 
be done by the same groups and they include:

  * 1.Terms of Reference and Procedures for Proposals

  * 2.Terms of Reference for formation and operation of the selection
    committee

  * 3.Helpful instructions/online tutorials/videos, etc. for potential
    applicants

There is the thorny and yet unresolved issue of what to tell failed 
applicants. In some existing granting processes the application process 
assigns “points” to various aspects of the proposal, e.g., consistency 
with ToR mission/vision, budgetary detail, etc. and failed applicants 
can self-evaluate. In some cases there is feedback (see /tricky issue/ 
below). In others there is none, but with outside (third-party) help, 
failed proposals can be evaluated against successful proposals for 
insights and lessons learned.

It is usually enough to urge failed applicants to review their 
applications, to invite future submissions, and leave it at that. One 
must take care not to leave scope for a challenge process that is messy, 
time consuming, and will deter good candidates from serving on selection 
committees.

There are usually lessons learned by the selection committee and the 
safest path forward is to incorporate those lessons learned in the 
ancillary “helpful instructions” (in ways that do not identify failed 
applicants.)

Lastly,/and this is a tricky issue/, one would hope for some consistency 
in the selection committee, and the actual selection criteria for 
subsequent proposal submissions, or at lease very explicit information 
on changed selection criteria. I have seen instances where government 
official development assistance competitions have commented on 
shortcomings in failed proposals, only for subsequent amended proposals 
to fail again because the selection committee has changed, and/or has 
changed the relative weights across its evaluation criteria, and 
applications were not informed of the changes.

Good luck with the session on the 18th. Within our ccWG mandate I feel 
we are making good progress.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190822/ce9b2279/attachment-0001.html>