[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

[Sam Lanfranco]

Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is 
the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be 
cast slightly differently. Something like:

  * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review,
    starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on
    Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects
    relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include
    an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final
    assessments provided to the APPRP.

  * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational
    performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate
    individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments
    provided to the APPRP.

Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the 
initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual 
project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP”. That does leave 
open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the 
project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible 
for assessing the quality of the reporting.

Sam L

On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote:
> I am having a little trouble reconciling this:
>
>   * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual
>     review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational
>     process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction
>     proceeds goals *and an assessment of the success of funded
>     projects* (based on interim and final assessments provided to the
>     APPRP).
>
> with this:
>
>   * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall
>     operation of the Mechanism and w*ill not evaluate the success of
>     individual funded projects*, although the APPRP may take into
>     consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism.
>
> In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment 
> of the overall success of the program"?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190826/b12e9ffc/attachment-0001.html>