[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-0001.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list