[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey

Mon May 7 14:18:29 UTC 2018

Dear OCL:
You know we are one on the larger issue.  When can I declare grievous
injury?

Can you imagine, this business about "what is the Open Internet"? Christ on
a bike!

CAS

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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> 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>
>>> 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. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180507/916ccd13/attachment.html>