[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

[Becky Burr]

I think it is fine for APPRP to use the individual assessments provided by experts to measure the overall success of the program, but very concerned about any evaluation of individual projects by the APPRP.  I am concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal


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 will 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"?