[ALAC] Auction proceeds survey
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon May 7 03:10:54 UTC 2018
NowI am a bit confused. You say the Committee is also working on what categories of projects to fund? So is the Committee also asking for comments on that, or has it already had sufficient feedback. And if it has, what are the outcomes?
So what it appears from your statement is that the Committee is considering both where the funds should go, and the structure(s) to manage the distribution. My comment was really to ask when/how the decision on where the money is spent is to be made, the extent to which that might impact on the appropriate mechanism for distribution of funds to agreed targets, and why we are discussing the distribution mechanism before there is agreement on agreed distribution targets.
On 7 May 2018, at 12:53 pm, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:
> We are talking about the 4 different mechanism because we need to figure this out. We have been working on this for a long time. We are also working on what categories of projects to fund. We had created a set of examples but have had to revise them based on concerns by the Board but working on that as well. We cannot share these with you yet because they are not agreed. We have also heard from various funds and charities and people who run these to learn about how they manage the funds. I am very much concerned about the funds being used to reduce ICANN's debt, but it seems that the ALAC members on Auction proceeds are split on this. Many want little or no money to go to shore up the reserves, while others prefer to have about 25% go. I too am concerned with the beneficiaries, but we cannot set that now because we cannot specify any group right now, just the types of activities we are interested and they type of capacity building.
> The survey went into all sorts of details such as which of these options would be cost effective, more transparent, more accountable, give more opportunities for stakeholder input. Pretty any action that you can think of on these 4 mechanisms.
> Option to would be working with a foundation not a charity. It is 4 but with more of hands on by ICANN and the multi-stakeholder community.
> So the question really Vanda meant to ask is which of these options would be cost effective, more transparent, more accountable, give more opportunities for stakeholder input. Answer could be different for each of these ideas.. Happy to answer any questions. I have already taken the survey so know about all the questions asked.
> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> Hellerstein & Associates
> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com
> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
> On 5/6/2018 9:51 PM, Holly Raiche 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
>> 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:
>>> 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.
>>> 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).
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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...
More information about the ALAC