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

[Vanda Scartezini]

Even theoretically agreeing with Maureen, I see a great problem in responding all denied presentations. 
My proposal was to apply first with a small resume to not expend much time/people in the proposal analysis from both sides.
 With this,  we can have as we do here, a template with the reasons to denied as one with next steps for the accepted, with instructions wil do the  task 

 For instance here the  DENIED template states some of the reasons:
 - out of context ( could be out of ICANN mission )
- lack of innovation
- existing studies ( solutions etc ) 
- lack of impact analysis ( demanding as previous justification)

After the previous approval people that will make the full proposal with cost, detailed explanations and justifications can be also approved or rejected 
  When not approved  the feedback will state, for isntance:
-  inconsistency between Cost X project 
- inconsistency between time length X project 
- inadequate team 
- better structured  similar projects 

 With some templates the feedback is delivered with some information but the time consuming is minimum.
 Lack of capacitation  certainly exist,  but the Auction is there to get good results,  not a program to capacitate on how to make good projects proposals 

My 2 cents 
 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 

 
 
 

On 8/20/19, 17:57, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of John R Levine" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of johnl at taugh.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
    
    > I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose
    > proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them
    > to produce the applications that are going to  make the grade. This is more
    > needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in
    > writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really
    > worthwhile.
    
    I really do not think it is our job to tell people how to rewrite their 
    proposals so they can reapply.  (Will there even be a chance to reapply?)
    
    If we want to provide grant writing help, we should make that part of the 
    plan and not confuse it with the grant evaluation.
    
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
    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.