[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

[Maureen Hilyard]

Perhaps an  "overall assessment of approved projects, etc"?... because as
is, it still sounds as if it does the assessment.

To me anyway 🙂



On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 10:38 AM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Attached is the final version. In response to Becky's comment, I have
> added the word "cumulative" in 3rd APPRP bullet. It now reads:
>
> 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 *cumulative* assessment of the success of funded projects (based on
> interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP).
>
>
> This hopefully makes it clear that the APPRP is not actually assessing
> project success but is looking at the cumulative or average success of the
> entire project portfolio.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 26/08/2019 05:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> I'll do a revision once a few more comments come
> it, but will make it VERY clear that the APPRP
> will not evaluate specific projects. As an aside,
> if the APPRP feels that the Mechanism is not
> doing proper project result evaluation, that
> would be a dandy reason to suggest an APPAP.
>
> Alan
>
> At 26/08/2019 05:29 PM, Becky Burr wrote:
> >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"?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190828/5473e7ee/attachment.html>