[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
John R Levine
johnl at taugh.com
Thu Aug 22 15:17:24 UTC 2019
I don't understand what you're proposing here.
This looks like a combincation of a two-stage application process (which I
suppose is OK for large grants but way too much work for small ones) and a
more complex denial process in which the evaluators have to say why they
refused a grant. What if there are three evaluators and they each have a
It's going to be hard enough just to get to yes or no, so I am utterly
opposed to any sort of explanation of why a grant was not approved.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
> 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.
> 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
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds