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

Thu Sep 7 02:36:02 UTC 2017

Hello Alan,

Kindly find inline:

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Sep 6, 2017 6:56 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

Thanks for raising this Seun.

I am not sure that characterizing my position as wanting to go beyond
ICANN's mission" is quite accurate.

SO: FWIW, It's good to read that.

The

 .

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.

SO: +1

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.

SO: +1

.

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.

SO: Hmm...we should not be very strict but at the same time we have to be
mindful of being within ICANN mission. The funds for instance should not be
used to digitize content of a museum library. I also don't think the idea
of staying within ICANN mission implies we should put the funds into ICANN
operational budget. There are many many activities/projects within ICANN
mission that their budget doesn't cover and rolling back a one time amount
into operational budget isn't a good idea for not-for-profit.

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.

SO: IMO am not sure why you think IX probably falls outside of ICANN
mission. Espcially if it comes to capacity building and providing relevant
resources to get them more operational to ensure open Internet because some
IX does host registry copies. Section IV of ICANN mission seem to allow
that. That said, I don't think having ICANN build an IX from scratch for
instance should be within scope.

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.

SO: Okay so it seem we do not necessarily have a significantly different
view on this after all.

I hope this helps.

SO: Yes it does.

Regards

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

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" <erika at erikamann.com>
Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
To: < 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 < steve.crocker at board.icann.org>
Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>,
Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org >
Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <
marika.konings at icann.org >, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org>, Avri
Doria <avri at apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com >, Board
Operations <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org >, Sally Costerton <
sally.costerton at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>,
Lauren Allison <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
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/20170907/006ad6b6/attachment.html>