[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey

Mon May 7 18:23:10 UTC 2018

My personal view is that external fund (or foundation) could be the best alternative with Community overseen the projects to grant and the results achieved.
Rationale: is ready to start. So the projects can start
Community involvement will be possible and the only point will be the % those funds/foundations will retain, but a good negotiation since there are several around the world and do not need to be just one, can minimize the problem.
Kisses to all

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.

From: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 09:45
To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey

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 How 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.

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180507/16255aa3/attachment.html>