Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Stephen Deerhake
34:50
Good morning Becky.
Rudi
34:59
Good Morning
Vanda Scartezini
40:31
please not reopen alternative D!
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
40:54
I agree- we cannot re-hash old conversations
Elliot Noss
44:45
agree with erika
Sam Lanfranco
49:31
Mea Culpa. I mistakenly referenced Mechanism D. Agree that it is now off the table.
Emily Barabas
51:00
The attached graphic highlights the division of responsibilities under each of the proposed mechanisms.
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
51:24
Can you post a link to where this exists on a webpage
Emily Barabas
51:40
And here are the common characteristics across mechanisms.
Emily Barabas
52:06
You can find the graphics here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Graphics
Emily Barabas
52:27
And the summary of inputs from ICANN Board and Org are here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/FAQs
Hadia Elminiawi
54:21
@Alan makes sense - Having success factors for each mechanism in necessary
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
56:03
@Elliot, not nearly 2 years, now >2.5 years.
Vanda Scartezini
56:14
believe you are right Elliot
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
56:45
i still think many people support C
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
58:15
Just to note that the "At-Large" criteria included specific details that were not fully supported by all of the At-Large members.
Elliot Noss
58:56
@judith your comment is predicated on a very different assumption of A than I think most of us have
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
59:26
This is why I do not understand A
Elliot Noss
59:26
AND your comment, qualified by your interpretation is, I think, correct. It is the interpretation I think is not correct
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
01:05:07
@elliott, the noncom is chosen by people from the community
Becky Burr
01:06:15
The NomCom is NOT independent
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
01:06:25
@becky exactly
Becky Burr
01:07:13
in the sense that its members are drawn from the various parts of the community, includes people who are very active in ICANN processes, and have vested interests in outcomes.
Jonathan Robinson (Afilias)
01:09:10
@Erika. Re: High Workload. That's a good point - just ask anyone on the NomCom!
Elliot Noss
01:10:12
If I could get on very briefly with apologies
Becky Burr
01:13:41
another reason that recusal doesn’t work is that you want to have a consistent perspective across the entire selection process - not different panels for different applications based on recusals
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:14:54
Although there will be high level workload expectations I still believe that there are community people who would commit to the selection role and who have had the type of experience required, but the addition of experts in this type of activity is also an important component.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:17:00
I would like to know what the role of the advisory committee is going to be if this is where it is suggested that the community should sit, and what influence they will have on the selection process
Elliot Noss
01:18:12
it would be MY PLEASURE to do A LOT of work in that regard
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:19:56
Exactly Elliot.. there are community members out there who would be prepared to do the work even though they know it is going to be a heavy role
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:20:34
@Elliot, I am SURE you would. And perhaps others here as well. But on the average, that is NOT my experieince.
Elliot Noss
01:20:41
painting it as extreme is not a fair comment
Becky Burr
01:21:19
I do like Elliot’s broad vision about the source of applications, but we do know that applications will come from the community. A truly independent selection panel reduces the risks associated with those kind of applications.
Maarten Botterman
01:21:23
+1 Alan. All those involved would *not* longer be elibible for funding ... whereas they may have good ideas worth funding, too ... having a professional, truly independent panel of experts would make that possible.
Elliot Noss
01:21:35
We only need 10-12 and again, getting “volunteers” for narrow issues of particular interest (ex. RPM review) gets “volunteers” from IP law firms
Elliot Noss
01:21:41
that cannot be compared to this
Vanda Scartezini
01:21:42
I agree with Elliot and believe that if community can chose members fo the baord and other leaders seating in ICANN i do believe there will be fair enough to have a panel from the community
Vanda Scartezini
01:22:09
this will work with independency
Elliot Noss
01:23:16
(Got disconnected for 30 seconds)
Becky Burr
01:23:41
@maureen, it makes sense to talk about the role of the Advisory Board in this context.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:24:05
Alan is looking at community members as being volunteers who will do this (with no compensation for their work) vs experts/professionals who will get paid for the same work
Vanda Scartezini
01:24:56
it will depend on the role of this Advisory group
Vanda Scartezini
01:26:28
requisites to those members will be quite relevant
Vanda Scartezini
01:27:09
yes
Ching Chiao
01:27:33
yes
Vanda Scartezini
01:27:36
i can join too
Thato Mfikwe
01:27:40
I am interested in joining
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:27:40
In order to mantain the focus on the merits of an application as per ICANN's mission,etc, it is possibly a reason for having community input into the selecton process
Vanda Scartezini
01:27:54
vanda
Julie Bisland
01:28:05
Vanda and Thato
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:28:06
Id be interested in joining
Thato Mfikwe
01:28:09
Thato Mfikwe
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:28:37
Sure.
Jonathan Robinson (Afilias)
01:28:40
Yes
Elliot Noss
01:28:43
ok
mscade
01:32:32
apologies to be delayed to join the working call
Emily Barabas
01:34:27
the document currently on display is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111392258/new%20gTLD%20AP%20CCWG%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20-%20updated%2029%20July%202019.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1564556416000&api=v2
Emily Barabas
01:34:52
we are on page 21
Becky Burr
01:37:20
Not clear to me why both Advisory Board and PEP are needed
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:37:34
So Advisory Board and Program Evaluation seem similar
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:39:36
Are these seen as the roles of the community?Project Evaluation Team
Nadira AlAraj
01:39:40
Project evaluations could be set by different committees (experts and community volunteers) based on the bracket of the value of solicited fund.
Vanda Scartezini
01:40:38
yesNadira we need to have experts
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:41:42
The intent is the the AB is more day-to-day and year-to-yer and would not have a mandate for major changes, just adjustments. The 2nd group is a major function, perhaps including a paid external reviewer in addition to community members and would be empowered to make substantive change rec. to the Board. The effort is much larger for the latter.
Vanda Scartezini
01:41:45
I also believe there will be external audit on the finance issues of the project , at least is common in a regular grants
Becky Burr
01:43:04
Wouldn’t the AB notice if things were going drastically wrong?
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:43:11
I agree about having evaluations and audits but my concern is that this is where the community becomes involved which is completely different from the role we originally thought the community would have
Elliot Noss
01:43:17
Don’t like it for the obvious reasons and don’t want tp repeat myself :-)
Elliot Noss
01:43:33
taking silence as assent is not appropriate
Elliot Noss
01:43:53
No one objected to my sense as well and a couple people openly agreed
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:45:28
I agree with Becky here
Marilyn S Cade
01:46:06
I have always thought that an advisory “group” is on the front end, not intervening actively. Agree with Becky on that point.
Vanda Scartezini
01:47:41
I agree with Becky too it is quite relevant not have inf=terference..
Becky Burr
01:47:57
@Elliot - what is your sense?
Elliot Noss
01:49:20
@becky I am totally unclear on your/board fear of conflict. Proposals will come from WAY o/s the community and this will all be a non-issue. I don’t get to even these issues. Yours is even more remote to me
Vanda Scartezini
01:49:49
here we have a process for the grants with involvement of community but will send by email
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:51:13
Involving the community as part of the evaluation process is fine and proper, but it is important that they should be involved throughout the whole process including on the independent selection panel that we first envisaged
Becky Burr
01:51:29
@Elliot - very much hope that proposals come from way outside of the community, but based on the questions we’ve received, it seems quite clear that proposals will also come from active community participants
Elliot Noss
01:52:01
apologies. I need to go. Bye and thanks all
Marilyn S Cade
01:52:23
It is hard to envision how community members,ICANN org, or ICANN Board can be independent regarding panel evaluations. I do see conflicts there. I wouldn’t use IANA as an example. That is central to ICANN.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:53:23
IANA was only mentioned in that it has mechanism to trigger review. The details are not the same.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:55:11
Is it envisaged that these evaluators include paid professionals in the same way as the selection panel has been described earlier vs non-paid volunteers
Maarten Botterman
01:55:17
Happy to come back to any clear question in writing - this may help clarity, also for those who were not able to make this call
Becky Burr
01:56:21
agree that this is not a current competency, but “audit” is used, so need to know what is meant in each case
Becky Burr
01:56:27
Thank you @Erkia
Vanda Scartezini
01:58:37
yes reviews are common including finance audit and the reviews will be facilitated by a regular report form the grantee
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:59:02
The mechanism could contract for what used to be called (maybe still is) a "comprehensive audit" to look at its operation.
Hadia Elminiawi
01:59:16
thank you all - bye
Vanda Scartezini
02:00:05
very good discussion thanks to Alan, Elliot, Erika, Becky in special and all too
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:00:32
Great discussion. Thanks all
Vanda Scartezini
02:01:09
back to the discussion …. register 1,5 hours too
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
02:01:30
mine registered at 2 hours.
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
02:01:57
but maybe the first one said 1.5 and a later one said 2 not sure
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:02:34
Interesting examples of appeal processes
Rudi Daniel
02:04:00
Thank you very much all...need to be at another meeting...very good discussions here today
Vanda Scartezini
02:06:40
liked
Emily Barabas
02:08:13
The document is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111387625/Examples%20of%20individual%20appeal%20processes%20in%20grant%20making%5B4%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564438672000&api=v2
Sam Lanfranco
02:08:30
Digesting!
Stephen Deerhake
02:08:50
Looks good to me... Lightweight.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:13:13
Thanks Sam.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:13:59
Thanks for the info Sam - very helpful
Nadira AlAraj
02:15:18
Helping community in writing proposal or revising proposals will not be under the mandate of any pannel.
Marilyn S Cade
02:15:29
Seems lightweight but gives multiple steps. Good progress on this.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:15:48
Sure, but my time is getting rather limited...
Marika Konings
02:17:55
14 August is in two weeks
Vanda Scartezini
02:18:22
two weeks is ok
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:18:32
OK with two week
Judith Hellerstein- At Large
02:18:39
fine with me. will it give enough time for the small groups
Sam Lanfranco
02:18:55
Will likely miss in two-weeks. On a plane.
Marilyn S Cade
02:19:02
I’d like to join the small group on independence. How do I do that?
Sam Lanfranco
02:19:11
Thanks
Vanda Scartezini
02:19:11
thanks again to all
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:19:18
Thanks all
Nadira AlAraj
02:19:23
Thank you Erika