<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations
<a id="OWAAM3B6E7BAA501ACE4695EBD237B7CCC216" href="mailto:sylvia@apnic.net"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">@Sylvia Cadena</span></a> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed
over?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, 16 August 2019 at 20:58<br>
<b>To: </b>"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I guess I say "in case" because from my recent experience of getting some of our end-user group to ATLAS, just as an example, it doesn't matter how fair or transparent the process may be, there are still people who are going to attack it
on he basis of unfairness or prejudice of some sort. And you are right, they waste an inordinate amount of time.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My point therefore, is if we are going to have an appeals process because that is what has been suggested by the Executive Group, then it should be as short as possible and to the point.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Im not sure if we are discussing an ICANN process or an independent process for appeals? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maureen<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:38 PM John R. Levine <<a href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com">johnl@iecc.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">> I believe that we should still have an appeals process just in case - with<br>
> a much lighter touch and being very clear what the process addresses<br>
<br>
Sorry, but I have no idea just in case what? I can imagine all sorts of <br>
implausible ways that processes might fail but that doesn't mean we have <br>
to invent a meta-process to deal with them all. If it's an ICANN process <br>
failure, why wouldn't the existing ombudsman and appeal be used?<br>
<br>
Any grant appeals process is going to be clogged by merit-free complaints <br>
from people who are unhappy that their wonderful proposals didn't get <br>
funded. It will be a huge waste of time.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
John Levine, <a href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com" target="_blank">johnl@iecc.com</a>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",<br>
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. <a href="https://jl.ly" target="_blank">
https://jl.ly</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>