[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 23 19:23:05 UTC 2019


Agree. Remove it.



________________________________
From: Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism

I would remove it.


J. Beckwith Burr

HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP

1919 M Street NW/8th Floor

Washington DC 20036

202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)


________________________________
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:06:27 PM
To: Becky Burr
Cc: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism

Both paragraphs would be included - the second is the actual recommendation. If you and others think this sentence could be interpreted to mean that despite the CCWG’s recommendation the mechanism could still establish an individual appeals process, maybe it is best to remove it?

Best regards,

Marika

> On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:43, Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com> wrote:
>
> Will both paragraphs be included or just the second?  If both, what does this sentence mean: "This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds."
>
>
> Does this mean the independent evaluation panel would be permitted to create redress mechanisms?  Is that what is intended?
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
>
> 1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
>
> Washington DC 20036
>
> 202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:50:50 AM
> To: Becky Burr; Marilyn Cade
> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
>
> Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows:
>
> The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall program’s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
> CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants].  [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36
> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "maarten.botterman at board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
>
> agree with Marilyn's proposed changes
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Agreeing with Maarten.
> If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages.
>
> 🙂
> I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a
> POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ].
>
>
> The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman at board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman at board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman at board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>>
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM
> To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
>
>
> Dear Marika,
>
>
>
> Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel.
>
>
>
> When you say below:
>
>
>
> The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application.
>
>
>
> It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Maarten
>
>
>
> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42
> To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
>
>
>
> Dear CCWG,
>
>
>
> Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest.
>
>
>
> Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism:
>
>
>
> The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.
>
> CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants].  [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected].
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> Marika Konings
>
> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann.org%2Fcourses%2Fgnso&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=mxhpOS%2BooZFt9o99Z%2FCvh8Q6LSCD1TfTHRc1h7uIKwc%3D&reserved=0=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Ffiles%2Fgnso%2Fpresentations%2Fpolicy-efforts.htm%23newcomers&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=bIH6rSLN9xzut1bx8Zwq%2Fvm2oBrcplt6NY3j0I9w3U0%3D&reserved=0=>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=NwuLS5JR8hbLGERMwJPGL6IUct3KwT%2FOGCw2ZECdfFc%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=WM1UDHjAZUdpQ4xYDKXA4auMUugRGxqvw5PYldPmLv8%3D&reserved=0=  [icann.org]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=WM1UDHjAZUdpQ4xYDKXA4auMUugRGxqvw5PYldPmLv8%3D&reserved=0=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=8dkjMpQKhfzBsdZBmyxQSh%2FCtUFLfqZZhL3PKrG1bcE%3D&reserved=0=  [icann.org]<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb639b0b03e8e4fde7fd108d727fd7a01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637021841930692960&sdata=8dkjMpQKhfzBsdZBmyxQSh%2FCtUFLfqZZhL3PKrG1bcE%3D&reserved=0=>). 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/20190823/d2ca8ddb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list