[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Are we trying to reinvent the wheel or Coordinate with other donors: Other Internet Community funding initiatives..
Robert Guerra
rguerra at privaterra.org
Mon Feb 4 21:02:13 UTC 2019
Marilyn,
Thanks for your email. Let me comment below..
On 4 Feb 2019, at 15:31, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> I am not adverse to an organized presentation,
perhaps I wasn’t clear in my original comment, that being - if
related initiatives that fund Internet related programs have been
reviewed in some capacity so we could a. map areas of common interest,
b. explore potential areas of collaboration and/or coordination, and c.
assess best practices in processes, oversight and review of applications
might be best practices we could use.
> BUT, I am not sure why we would be spending time on state funded
> programs, as in particular, state sponsored grants are a two pronged
> approach usually, they allocate funds to a first qualified party, who
> takes a considerable overhead as they are the "manager", then that
> entity recruits and sub allocates, monitors, etc. and they also take a
> considerable overhead to hire staff, manage the project day to day, so
> a much reduced amount eventually is spent locally.
I mentioned the - state department - funding call as an example, that
might be interesting to review. The DRL funding call has a very
different scope, but other related processes - such as how applications
will be reviewed, reporting requirements and additional details
requested - in my opinion, follow best practices that might be
worthwhile to incorporate in some fashion.
>
> I also note that the majority of this list is focused on digital/human
> rights.
It’s not the focus of the funding calls that think is of interest to
this ccwg.. instead, the additional materials requested from applicants
(financial experience, outcomes, experience, etc) as well as processes
that are used to review applications are - pretty standard and echo many
of the public comments that were received.
> I had hoped that the examples we developed earlier would stand the
> test of rationality as we evolved the work of the CCWG-AP. As
> attested in the detailed transcripts of the discussion of the group,
> which I hope the all who joined mid stream, so to speak, as I did at
> Meeting 17, reviewed, there have been detailed discussions. It is
> important to keep in mind that we have struggled to ensure that we can
> defend to the broader ICANN community and the ICANN Board that the
> principles/examples are focused on areas "aligned" with ICANN's
> mission.
While there’s a lot that can be funded, I agree with many of the
public comments that there needs to be a focus on projects that are not
just aligned, but also focused on ICANN’s core mission
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1).
> If we are to make time for a second round to inform ourselves and to
> help us fine-tune our recommendations, I'd prefer that we have an
> organized approach, a required set of questions for the presenter, and
> of course, the presenters need to understand that they need to
> declare any conflict of interest for themselves if they then intend to
> apply for the funding from the Auction Proceeds in the future.
> So, if there in interest in another round of "interviews" with
> existing granting organizations, let's consider who, why, and what to
> maximize the effectiveness of their time, and ours.
A coordination and collaboration with existing well respected existing
foundations, funding bodies other donor bodies could be helpful.
Interviews, I don’t think are the right mechanism. A more strategic
dialogue, that could include a MOU on collaboration and coordination
could be helpful. What others think and how to include it in our work an
recommendations is something, I believe should be discussed in more
detail (if it hasn’t already).
I welcome your comments and those of others..
regards
Robert
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list