[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey

Mon May 7 09:05:36 UTC 2018

Thanks to Vanda for bringing the subject matter to our attention.

A big +1 to Holly's. I share every concern and question noted. I should
think Option 4 is preferred.

Why so convoluted? Reminds me of a story used by a former boss -  an
ex-army 3-star general - to characterise something like this when
presented. He'd say the 2 hump camel was what emerged when an earnest
committee got together to plan a better race horse.

Carlton

On Sun, 6 May 2018, 8:51 pm Holly Raiche, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

> First - thank you Vanda with sharing this with ALAC. I hope this
> discussion can migrate somewhere beyond just this email so that everyone
> can easily find and comment on it.
>
> Now, to be devil’s advocate.  Why is the group seeking comment on how the
> funds are managed rather than how they are allocated.  It seems to me that
> the most important question is how the funds will be spent - and heaven
> knows ALAC has already contributed to this discussion.  Some of the
> suggestions over time have been that the funds should support applications
> from underserved areas, and/or help fund community (better defined)
> applications.  We also had concerns about some of the funds being used to
> reduce ICANN debt. But all that was about allocation - not the mechanism of
> allocation itself.
>
> So I am really less concerned with the allocation METHOD, and more
> concerned with the beneficiaries of the allocation.
>
> That said, I will comment on the options.
>
> Option One: I am a bit concerned with yet another Department within
> ICANN.  They are - we are told - cutting back on expenditure. Creating a
> new Department will be heading the other way.
> Option 2: I particularly do not favour Option 2 because it assumes that
> the money may be spent on charitable purposes.  If the decision is to
> assist underserved areas, the focus will be very different to ‘charitable
> purposes;
> Option 3 & 4: I’d prefer something like a Foundation - so that the funds
> really are separate, and so would be happier with Options 3 or 4. I would
> prefer Option 4,  but with the condition that if it is to evaluate
> proposals (good idea) then it must have multistakeholder membership and not
> simply be a creature of ICANN Org.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 May 2018, at 8:19 am, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Alan, other  ALAC friends
>  In the Auction proceeds CCWG we are asked to respond to a survey.
> Since from the responses from this survey the proposals for the report
> will be more defined, we were encouraged to get some feedback from the
> group we are acting with, in this case ALAC, and share our ideas and get
> your feedbacks if possible
> There are several questions but in my view some will define others and I
> would like to hear from you, your thoughts
>  For me the relevant question is related to the model
> Please take a look at
> https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter
> To understand the question.
>  All financial resource shall be granted to projects under the mission of
> ICANN and only for that.
>
> Sorry we have to finalize the survey till Miercoles May 9 , so if you can
> give feedback during Monday 7and Tuesday8 I really appreciate.
>
> Here the options for the most relevant question in my opinion I would like
> to have some inputs before respond the survey: which will be the best
> option, think about process, cost, efficiency…
>
> The working group has come up with 4 different possible mechanisms that
> could be considered:
>
>    1. A New ICANN Proceeds Allocation *Department is created as part of
>    ICANN*, the organisation (ICANN Org)- This department would be part of
>    ICANN Org and *take full responsibility* for solicitation and
>    evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process.
>    2. New ICANN Proceeds Allocation *Department Created* as part of ICANN
>    Org which would *work in collaboration with an existing charitable
>    organization(*s) Responsibilities for solicitation and evaluation of
>    proposals, and disbursement process would be split between the newly
>    created department and the existing charitable organization(s).
>    3. A *new structure would be created (e.g. ICANN foundation*) - A new
>    structure would be created separate of ICANN Org which would be responsible
>    for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process
>
>
>
>    1. *An established entity/entities* (e.g. foundation or fund) are used
>    (*ICANN would organize the oversight of processes to ensure mission
>    and fiduciary duties are met*) - An stablished entity / entities (e.g.
>    foundation or fund) would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation of
>    proposals, and disbursement process.
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
> *Polo Consultores Associados*
> *Av. Paulista **1159, cj 1004*
> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
> *Sorry for any typos. *
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180507/5df29f85/attachment.html>