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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Sep 7 02:55:48 UTC 2017

Parts extracted to keep things concise and my further comments.

At 06/09/2017 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>On Sep 6, 2017 6:56 PM, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>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.

AG: My suggestion to put the funds into ICANN's operational budget 
was not serious, but I was trying to highlight that *IF* we were 
going to constrain too tightly, the net effect would be the same and 
a lot lest costly interms of this CCAG working for another year or so 
and then setting up or contracting for some operational entity to do the work.

Even I would find it hard (or impossible) to justifying digitizing a 
library. Unless of course, it was the library associated with early 
IAN  or related documentation. That is why we WILL have constraints 
and the applicants will have to make a strong connection to them.

>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.

AG: I wasn't saying *I* think that. But I have had the reaction from 
some that ANYTHING that smells of infrastructure is definitely 
off-limits. If everyone now playing in the sandbox thinks it is fine, 
I am delighted. I am not sure that providing the rather minimal 
capital cost of the equipment, when it is part of an overall program 
is off-limits, but it is certainly something that could be decided.

>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.

AG: I don't think so. My concern is that there are some people in the 
group that REALLY want to constrain things, and while we may not go 
as liberal as I would prefer, I really want to make sure we do not 
end up in a position where we cannot make really good use of the funds.


>I hope this helps.
>SO: Yes it does.
>At 06/09/2017 03:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>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:
>>I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation.
>>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>
>>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.
>>---------- 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 
>><<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.
>>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170906/952a3777/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list