[ALAC] Briefing note: Use of gTLD Auction Proceeds for ICANN Reserve

[Alan Greenberg]

Judith, the item is on the agenda because our incoming Board member asked if the ALAC had a position on it and some ALAC members expressed an interest in further discussing it.

I consider those compelling reasons to have the discussion CCWG poll notwithstanding.

Alan

-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On October 26, 2017 10:12:05 AM GMT+04:00, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:
>Hi Seun,
>As explained by either Xavier or Sam Eisner using some of the funds for
>the reserve is legal however, people on the group at least at the time
>they made the presentation  felt that while not illegal sends the wrong
>message and so they preferred not to do it. Also the consensus from the
>call and the survey taken by members and participants felt that any
>amount going to replenish the reserve be under 10%. I for one agree
>with that as the people who spoke about this made a very good case. 
>Interested to hear what others have to say, but as I and Maureen said
>the group has moved passed this point many months ago and is now
>discussing the frameworks on how the structure that manages the money
>and gives the grants will function. Since we are no longer discussing
>this issue, I do not think it is fair for us to argue on this anymore.
>We need to focus on the issues now being discussed
>
>Happy to discuss this with you and others
>
>Judith
>
>Sent from my iPad 
>judith at jhellerstein.com 
>Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Seun.
>> 
>> There is no question of the "legality" of ICANN using the auction
>find to top up the reset. Or at least I have never heard mention of
>such a concern.
>> 
>> Whether operating costs are reasonable and justified is an ongoing
>issue. It might be addressed in the current public comment, or in the
>one to be opened on the FY19 Plan and Budget.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> On October 25, 2017 4:49:51 AM GMT+01:00, Seun Ojedeji
><seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Alan,
>> On the assumption that ICANN can legally use part of the proceeds to
>fund reserve, I'd be also can live with up to a 20% of whatever is the
>accessible amount of the AP.
>> However on a related note, I do personally think ICANN operating cost
>is quite on the high side in the first place and while effort is being
>made to get a 1 year reserve, i will be interested to know how much
>effort the Board is putting on 2 specific items:
>> 1. Avoid continuous increase on the operating cost which could then
>make a year target meaningless.
>> 2. Minimize operating cost as much as possible (of course without
>affecting the SO/AC part of things) so a 1 year reserve could end up
>sufficient for many more months when the need arises.
>> Regards
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>> On Oct 25, 2017 2:07 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
>wrote:
>> This is a briefing note in preparation for the discussion in AbuDhabi
>current scheduled for 9:30 am, local time, on Sunday.
>> As is common for non-profit organizations, and particularly ones
>where their income or expenses might be subject to unexpected
>fluctuations, ICANN maintains a "Reserve Fund" to allow it to cover
>unexpected expenses or below expectations income. Currently the target
>for the fund is one year's regular expenses, but due to unexpected
>expenses (primarily associated with the IANA transition and
>accountability exercise), it is below that. There is an open Public
>Comment where you can find out more about the fund -
>https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB.
>> It has been suggested that some portion of the proceeds of the new
>gTLD Auctions (currently about $235m, although there is some chance it
>could be as low as $105m) be used to help build back the reserve.
>> Excluding this possibility, the target use of the Auction Funds will
>be projects that are aligned with ICANN's mission and enhance the
>Internet (wording still under debate).
>> This brief discussion will be to solicit thoughts on whether this
>would be a good idea or not.
>> Alan
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20171026/6847d8e1/attachment.html>