[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Fwd: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

What do we think about this? i am inclined to support a motion against such
a move by Org. Let me knownyour thoughts.

Warmly,
Tomslin

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul McGrady via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: Sat, 22 July 2023, 06:19
Subject: [council] Fwd: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Hi All,



I have reservations about this.  While a narrowly tailored amendment to the
Bylaws would have resulted in a carve out of the Accountability Mechanisms
related solely to the grant program which would not be easily replicated
for other programs and issues, instructing Staff to do this *in a contract*
sets a very worrying precedent and opens the door for other future
instances where Staff could be instructed to use contracts and/or the
renewals of contracts to carve out the accountability mechanisms, making
them a de facto nullity and undoing the work of the Accountability CCWG.



I think the Council should ask the Board to hold on this and engage in a
community dialogue prior to taking further action.



Best,

Paul



On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 6:24 AM Wendy Profit <wendy.profit at icann.org> wrote:

*Sending on behalf of ICANN Board Chair, Tripti Sinha…*





Dear Former CCWG-AP Members, (in bcc)



In follow up to the update email from Xavier Calvez, I am writing to you as
Chair of the ICANN Board to update you on the Board’s discussions at its
workshop during ICANN77. During this workshop, the ICANN Board discussed
with ICANN org how to best implement Recommendation #7 of the Final
Report.



As a reminder, part of Recommendation #7 stated that ICANN’s existing
accountability mechanisms – the Independent Review Process (IRP) or the
Reconsideration Process – could not be used to challenge decisions made by
the Independent Applications Assessment Panel on individual applications
within the Grant Program. To allow this would add unnecessary complexity to
the program. Additionally, the total available funding for the program
could also be depleted by the cost of such challenges. The CCWG-AP (and the
Board as well, as indicated in our June 2022 action on the CCWG-AP’s Final
Report) assumed that the best way to restrict the use of ICANN’s
accountability mechanisms in this way would be to amend the ICANN Bylaws to
create a “carve-out.” This would therefore require a Fundamental Bylaws
Amendment.



After exploring this issue more in-depth, I am happy to share with you that
the Board and ICANN org identified a path that both upholds the CCWG-AP’s
recommendation that individual application decisions should not be
challenged through ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, while also keeping
ICANN’s accountability mechanisms unchanged within the Bylaws. The Board is
planning to take action on this later this month; however, I wanted to
provide you with a preview. The Board will direct ICANN org to use the
contractual terms and conditions required to apply for the Grant Program to
obtain applicant agreement that they cannot use ICANN’s accountability
mechanisms to challenge any individual decision taken on their application
within the ICANN Grant Program. This remains in line with the CCWG-AP’s
recommendation regarding the accountability mechanisms as well as the
intention to lower complexity and protect the total amount of proceeds
available for applicants.



When the CCWG-AP made Recommendation #7, it also provided guidance that
providing limited opportunity for review of decisions within the Grant
Program might also introduce complexity, and encouraged ICANN to not make
such opportunities available. However, when considering the inability for
applicants to use ICANN’s accountability mechanisms for individual
decisions, the ICANN Board will also ask ICANN org to explore whether there
are appropriate interim opportunities within the evaluation process for
applicants to ask for a limited procedural review. The Board hopes this
will enhance ICANN’s accountability to applicants, while following best
practices within grant making programs.

We are happy to have identified a path forward that preserves the CCWG-AP’s
recommendation and enhances accountability to applicants and the wider
Internet community. The Bylaws are important to us, and we are confident
that we can keep up ICANN’s accountability, as set up, while at the same
time limiting the ability to challenge for individual selection decisions.



The Board is following ICANN org’s implementation closely and looks forward
to seeing this program launch next year. Thank you again for your time and
efforts that went into envisioning this exciting program. The establishment
of the ICANN Grant Program is a testament to your commitment to the work of
the CCWG-AP and is an excellent representation of the multistakeholder
model in action.



Kind Regards,



Tripti Sinha

Chair, ICANN Board of Directors



This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
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://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230727/b96754b1/attachment.htm>