[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Mon May 7 13:18:36 UTC 2018
Dear Carlton,
I can understand that on the one hand, the whole exercise seems to be a
very very long winded way to proceed forward, thus appearing more like a
delaying tactic than anything else. But on the other, this is how ICANN
has addressed every challenge it has had to resolve. I deplore that
often-times the community appears to want to re-invent the wheel.
For instance, is it really the responsibility of the ICANN community to
define "What is the Open Internet?"
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 07/05/2018 14:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> My Dear Maureen:
> Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot.
>
> In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of
> 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in
> talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as
> unwitting co-conspirators.
>
> That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission
> values is a no-brainer/No hands decision.
>
> That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can
> reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding.
>
> That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy
> discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where
> those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent.
>
> There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established.
> They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is
> connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that
> cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation.
>
> The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is
> a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available
> for funding projects annually.
>
> The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire
> exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut
> for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when
> use is the question during the operational phase.
>
> It really isn't rocket science.
>
> Best
> -Carlton.
>
>
> On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard,
> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlton and Holly
>
> I guess it does seem convoluted but that may be a perception of
> the GNSO processes.
>
> But for every stage of the Auction Proceeds meetings and
> in-between meeting discussions, there have been some really
> interesting and comprehensive debates around topics such as *The
> Charter and the Mission* of the group; *What is the Open
> Internet*? (and we still are out on that one); *Who should
> Benefit*? (was among the first things we discussed, and we were
> all tasked with making recommendations and then evaluating all the
> recommendations in order to come up with a core set of criteria on
> which applications might be based,a key one being that it must
> focus on CANN's mission); Whether ICANN should use *Auction
> Proceeds for its Reserve Fund *(there was a wide range of opinions
> on that topic); and for ages now we have looked at H*ow the Funds
> might be Managed.* After we had looked at several options and come
> up with a shortlist of mechanisms, we then asked a number of
> volunteer experts to give their opinion on our final four. For
> this survey, we are using their recommendations as our guide to
> assess which mechanism we each might suggest as the most
> appropriate one for this group to recommend to the Board.
>
> Carlton selected an external organisation taking control of the
> management of the funds with ICANN having oversight. Like you, I
> personally would prefer an independent ICANN Foundation with the
> CCWG recommendations being the over-riding influence in how it is
> managed. However, I realise that there is a cost factor involved
> in the Foundation option which limits it a bit, especially as we
> have not yet decided on a sunset period. But giving it over to an
> external organisation with its own goals and objectives, and with
> ICANN supervising, doesn't go down well for me (even though they
> may be a high-flier international organisation with huge
> experience in giving away donor money. But how do we ensure that
> they are interpreting our criteria for beneficiaries and purposes
> appropriately?).
>
> But that's my take on what we are doing anyway. We have a very
> active and enthusiastic team of members, so I am really looking
> forward to the results of this survey.
>
> Maureen
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Carlton Samuels
> <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. *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. /*
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180507/7a99bb2f/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list