<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process
quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues
<div><br>
<br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Vanda Scartezini
<div>Sent from my iPad</div>
<div>Sorry for any typos and misspellings</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">"That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> requested to fill out a survey with their input being
used for the annul</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> review of the program."</span>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">End quote.</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled.</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and
purpose of the grants.</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are
already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going
to be "very light weight" .</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind...</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">RD</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal <br>
process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should:<br>
<br>
- be VERY light weight;<br>
- there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission<br>
- go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final;<br>
- the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. <br>
Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been <br>
suggested).<br>
<br>
Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they <br>
may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high <br>
benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds <br>
for that period on projects that were better!<br>
<br>
As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, <br>
and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much <br>
everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the <br>
program with little positive outcome.<br>
<br>
That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should <br>
be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the <br>
annul review of the program.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote:<br>
>>Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run <br>
>>such grant making organizations @Sylvia <br>
>>Cadena<mailto:<a href="mailto:sylvia@apnic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sylvia@apnic.net</a>> has weighed in on this with some
<br>
>>factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over?<br>
<br>
I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up <br>
an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so <br>
no, we are not. It's a bad idea.<br>
<br>
R's,<br>
John<br>
<br>
At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote:<br>
>>Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual<br>
>>appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review.<br>
>>Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of<br>
>>the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August.<br>
><br>
>It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important<br>
>questions open, e.g.<br>
><br>
>* Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split <br>
>the cost, or<br>
>is it all ICANN?<br>
><br>
>* I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants<br>
>who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of<br>
>obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not<br>
>identifying any process failure other than saying no.<br>
><br>
>Regards,<br>
>John Levine, <a href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">johnl@iecc.com</a>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
<br>
>for Dummies",<br>
>Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. <a href="https://jl.ly" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://jl.ly</a><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of <br>
>your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list <br>
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy <br>
>(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
<br>
>Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the
<br>
>Mailman link above to change your membership status or <br>
>configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style <br>
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a></span><br>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>