[ALAC] Going beyond ICANN mission? (Was Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP)

Wed Sep 6 17:56:48 UTC 2017

Thanks for raising this Seun.

I am not sure that characterizing my position as wanting to go beyond 
ICANN's mission" is quite accurate. The issue of the mission (in 
regard to the auction funds) comes out of a dual need: a) to 
"support" ICANN's Mission and Core values, and b) to protect ICANN's 
non-profit status.

Since the original auction fund was conceived, we of course have 
significantly altered the words describing ICANN's mission and core 
values. That may be for the good or bad depending on how you view 
things, but it is unlikely that we will roll that change back and 
equally unlikely that the entire community could be convinced to 
alter the Bylaws explicitly for wider use of the auction funds.

So we are constrained. But I think it is really important that we use 
the mission and core values as a constraint, and not the driving objective.

We are talking about well over #200,000,000 (exactly how much will 
depend on how long the funds last, because there will be growth along 
the way). This is a one time opportunity to do some real good, and I 
would like to help ensure that we have as much flexibility as 
absolutely possible.

Among the original uses that were described in the New gTLD Applicant 
Guidebook was: "include formation of a foundation with a clear 
mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to projects that are 
of interest to the greater Internet community". My hope is that we 
can get as close to that as possible, and interpret the various parts 
of the mission and core values to give us the utmost possible flexibility.

We do not want to endanger ICANN, but we also do not want to squander 
the money. If we ONLY do things that are strictly within ICANN's 
scope in how it uses its operational funds, then we may as well just 
roll the money into the ICANN operational budget. We need to be innovative.

My classic example is Internet Exchange Points. They are not what I 
would consider something that is strictly within ICANN's mission. But 
they are very important to parts of our community including ISPs and 
the RIRs (the second N in ICANN). And they even (typically) require 
Autonomous System Numbers, one of the unique identifiers that we are 
here for. And they create great benefit for the "greater Internet 
community", and perhaps even more important, they help strenghten the 
relatively weak infrastructure in places not necessarily well 
served  by the Internet.

More specifically, I want the CCWG to leave the door as wide open as 
possible while meeting the Board's concerns, to allow project 
requesters to be innovative in creating viable links from their 
projects to the constraints that we must meet.

I hope this helps.

Alan

At 06/09/2017 03:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>Hello,
>
>There has been ongoing discussion in reaction to the attached letter 
>from the Board. The discussion has been around using the auction 
>funds for purpose beyond the ICANN mission. I was of the opinion 
>that her mission though has a scope was broad enough to ensure the 
>funds have a global reach as much as possible.
>However I have also noticed some members (notably Alan) have the 
>view that the funds should be used beyond the ICANN mission scope. 
>While it's not important that we share same opinion I also don't 
>want to take lightly veterans view on this matter, perhaps am 
>missing something :-)
>
>Specifically, is there a disadvantage for At-Large if the auction 
>funds is used within ICANN mission that makes it so important for us 
>to support acting outside of the ICANN mission?
>
>The specific thread can be followed here:
><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.html
>
>I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation.
>
>Regards
>Sent from my mobile
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: "Erika Mann" <<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>erika at erikamann.com>
>Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM
>Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>To: <<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>Cc:
>
>Dear All -
>
>herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
>
>We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG 
>AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will 
>discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
>
>Best,
>Erika
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Steve Crocker 
><<mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>steve.crocker at board.icann.org>
>Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
>Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>To: Erika Mann <<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>erika at erikamann.com>, 
>Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao at brandma.co>chiao at brandma.co>, Marika 
>Konings <<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>marika.konings at icann.org>
>Cc: Steve Crocker 
><<mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, 
>Marika Konings 
><<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>marika.konings at icann.org>, 
>Icann-board ICANN 
><<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>icann-board at icann.org>, Avri Doria 
><<mailto:avri at apc.org>avri at apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" 
><<mailto:sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>, Board 
>Operations 
><<mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>, Sally 
>Costerton 
><<mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>sally.costerton at icann.org>, 
>Samantha Eisner 
><<mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, 
>Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org>lauren.allison at icann.org>
>
>
>Dear Erika and Ching,
>
>Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the 
>Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) 
>in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
>
>On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in 
>our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. 
>Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a 
>letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
>
>Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kAfTkegi2gCP9wBV7y1t2Pta3rBAyLtX29O/VKLY/8KH0/vdhnduKFRutXIrhL4AKhSA2l4FX5kvlUOCsuRWx8T5WWy7kRQENXkS34+CJnaUyZfMIpCArNreF3W32RNR
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> 
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20170906/b8a44e3a/attachment.html>