[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey

Tue May 8 05:54:17 UTC 2018

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Mon, 7 May 2018, 13:19 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?"
>

SO: Ditto! I did not imagine that the auction proceed will be another ICANN
CCWG on accountability-like in terms of duration of completion. What you
have said above in terms of attempt to make definitions was what some of us
cautioned against and ask that if we must then we should make it simple and
not dwell on it too much.

It is either ICANN processes is not good enough to maintain consistent
participation of "non-paid volunteers" OR that there is an intentional
effort by certain parts of the community to complicate things until
non-paid volunteers bandwidth Max out and they voluntarily reduce their
participation.

Regards

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. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180508/b20a281e/attachment.html>