[At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat May 13 19:28:40 UTC 2017

I doubt that the CCWG will create a specific 
carve-out for IGF funding at this stage, And I 
would hope it will not prohibit such applications.

To what extent funding either the global or 
regional IGFs is within ICANN's mission and scope 
is something that has already and I presume will continue to be debated.

For those who have an interest in the subject and 
have not already done so, I found that listening 
to the Board session on the ICANN support and 
funding of IGFs at the recent Board Workshop was 
really good use of an hour - 


At 12/05/2017 06:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>​Oh and before anyone replies on procedure:
>I am fully aware that this stage of the WG is 
>dealing with broad criteria and not specific recipients.​
>But in the world of Internet Governance, the IGF 
>is in a category of its own and IMO it is 
>reasonable to discuss its inclusion at a structural level at this point.
>On 12 May 2017 at 18:55, Evan Leibovitch 
><<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org> wrote:
>I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
>Informing the world of the function of the DNS 
>-- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of 
>infrastructure -- is both within scope and of 
>high value. There are ways that this can be 
>deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
>Personally I'm a little surprised and 
>disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, 
>especially my civil society colleagues, are 
>advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an 
>ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many 
>important parts of Internet governance, but 
>ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so 
>much money and speculative/entrepreneurial 
>behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render 
>itself one of the global heroes of the Internet 
>ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of 
>other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
>Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best 
>interest to promote multi-stakeholderism 
>throughout the universe of IG. If government 
>multilateral activity can successfully encroach 
>on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the 
>IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
>Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the 
>idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way 
>to define such action to be within scope.
>(Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, 
>so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner 
>in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to 
>be in the IGF to see its value.)
>- Evan
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto, Canada
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170513/b2fbaba4/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list