<html>
<body>
I have been largely offline for the last two days and am just now
reviewing this thread. A few comments, not necessarily to any
particular posting.<br><br>
- This demonstrated the difficulty in going to a group such as the
members of the ALAC list with questions that focus highly on the work the
CCWG has been doing for over a year. A short introductory post cannot do
justice to all of the discussion that has gone on (admittedly not all of
which was productive!).<br><br>
- Of all the options, I favour doing something related to ICANN (there
are three variations) and working with another group that we pick
carefully so we do not have to invent mechanism and hire staff where we
can use resources that are already in existence and working well. Picking
that org may not be trivial. Simply farming everything out is perhaps the
easiest, but I think the least likely to make good use of our
money.<br><br>
- Regarding the "open Internet" issue. I strongly support it
staying. We will still need to consider the ICANN mission, but if we
restrict things too much, we will end up doing ONLY things that ICANN
itself could or should be doing and we will have lost a HUGE opportunity
to do really good things with what is likely to be close to 1/4 of a
billion dollars. If we end up wasting that, it would be a pity.<br><br>
- The ICANN department and ICANN foundation are functionally equivalent.
In both cases other ICANN resources can be shared if necessary (just as
PTI shares resources). If we are going to spend the money on setting up
and maintaining a separate corporation (ie Foundation), we need to be
really sure we understand what we are getting for the cost and
complexity. We did it with PTI largely for political purposes (it made
some people happy who wanted even more independence from ICANN) but I am
not at all sure what benefit we get from that expense.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 07/05/2018 02:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">So true Vanda.. we need the
input.of other. I know full well that Option #3 is the most expensive,
even though independence is an important criteria But the models
that John Laprise and Russell Howarth of Nominet mentioned could mean
some sharing of operational tasks may be possible while keeping the Board
and selection and allocation criteria separate.<br><br>
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Vanda Scartezini
<<a href="mailto:vanda@scartezini.org">vanda@scartezini.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Thank you Maureen for the explanation. I guess at this point we
had the experts exchanging their knowledge and experience with us, so the
model to distributing and control the results to better use the money is
relevant. <br><br>
<dd>The balance between the efficiency, efficacy and cost must be
considered, reason why other minds can think better than ours..<br><br>
<dd>Kisses <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Vanda Scartezini<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Polo Consultores Associados<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g">
Av. Paulista 1159</a>, cj 1004<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Sorry for any typos. <br>
</i></b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From: </b>ALAC
<<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard
<<a href="mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com">
maureen.hilyard@gmail.com</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Monday, May 7, 2018 at 06:47<br>
<dd>To: </b>Carlton Samuels
<<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">
carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: </b>'ALAC List'
<<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Hi Carlton and Holly <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I guess it does seem convoluted but that may be a perception of the
GNSO processes.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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</b> of the group; What is the Open Internet</b>? (and we still
are out on that one); Who should Benefit</b>? (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 </b>(there was a wide range of opinions on that
topic); and for ages now we have looked at How the Funds might be
Managed.</b> 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. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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?). <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Maureen <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Carlton Samuels
<<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">
carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Thanks to Vanda for bringing the subject matter to our attention.
<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>A big +1 to Holly's. I share every concern and question noted. I
should think Option 4 is preferred.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Carlton<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Sun, 6 May 2018, 8:51 pm Holly Raiche,
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>So I am really less concerned with the allocation METHOD, and more
concerned with the beneficiaries of the allocation.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>That said, I will comment on the options.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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;<br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Hope that helps<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Holly<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On 7 May 2018, at 8:19 am, Vanda Scartezini
<<a href="mailto:vanda@scartezini.org">vanda@scartezini.org</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear Alan, other ALAC friends<br><br>
<dd> In the Auction proceeds CCWG we are asked to respond to a
survey.<br><br>
<dd>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<br><br>
<dd>There are several questions but in my view some will define others
and I would like to hear from you, your thoughts<br><br>
<dd> For me the relevant question is related to the model<br><br>
<dd>Please take a look at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter">
https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter</a><br><br>
<dd>To understand the question.<br><br>
<dd> All financial resource shall be granted to projects under the
mission of ICANN and only for that.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Sorry we have to finalize the survey till Miercoles May 9 , so if you
can give feedback during Monday 7and Tuesday8 I really
appreciate.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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…<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The working group has come up with 4 different possible mechanisms
that could be considered:<br><br>
<dd>1. A New ICANN Proceeds Allocation
Department is created as part of ICANN</b>, the organisation (ICANN Org)-
This department would be part of ICANN Org and take full
responsibility</b> for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and
disbursement process.<br><br>
<dd>2. New ICANN Proceeds Allocation
Department Created</b> as part of ICANN Org which would work in
collaboration with an existing charitable organization(</b>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).<br><br>
<dd>3. A new structure would be created
(e.g. ICANN foundation</b>) - A new structure would be created separate
of ICANN Org which would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation
of proposals, and disbursement process<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>4. An established entity/entities</b>
(e.g. foundation or fund) are used (ICANN would organize the oversight of
processes to ensure mission and fiduciary duties are met</b>) - An
stablished entity / entities (e.g. foundation or fund) would be
responsible for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and
disbursement process.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Thank you<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Vanda Scartezini<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Polo Consultores Associados<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <br>
</i></b><br>
<dd>Sorry for any typos. <br>
</i></b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:zFjhgAXlAWsfYsRosDj90Yo88ZWODi+/FtcBVjIWEby++5iAEQAD2QZtfGDODaImoPaVeXeNJgN0++qRpAAlHjM4OelBwbqldiSj4lqH03YuiBhdFa/gqhVWTU+2xs57<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
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<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)</blockquote></body>
</html>