[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions

Daniel Dardailler danield at w3.org
Thu Jan 26 17:53:45 UTC 2017


Hello all

Here's my input to the questions.

1. What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be
designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD
Auction Proceeds?

As I mentioned on the call, I think we should separate the two issues at 
hand:
  - design a set of specific of funding guidelines/mission for a new "DNS 
granting agency". This should talk about scope, criteria of success for 
grantees, limitations, strategic plan, funding calls, etc.
  - implement this granting agency in a legal framework of some kind

Most of my input will be on the first point, since I know little about 
granting agency legal setup (although I participated in the creation of 
the Web Foundation, a Swiss Foundation, and a couple of French assoc - 
one of which was for hosting the ICANN plenary in Paris a few years ago 
;).

So regarding this second point, and this question 1, on framework, I 
would recommend that if we want to minimize the time and the costs to 
implement a funding agency (not to mention the liability and the 
flexibility for future changes), let's try to do it first within ICANN, 
e.g. create an "Office of DNS Auction Grant", much like there is an 
"Office of the Ombudsman", which would have its own committee for 
funding review, staff mgnt, and report to the ICANN board.

If this requires a change in the ICANN by-laws, then let's do that, it 
would still be simpler than creating an external entity or dealing with 
one over the years.

If this is not possible for legal/tax reasons, then too bad..


2. What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that 
the funds
need to be used in line with ICANN’s mission while at the same time
recognising the diversity of communities that ICANN serves?

I think we should start by describing the various criteria we 
collectively have in mind as far as judging if a given project is worth 
the funding by this new DNS agency.

I lined up a few of them in one of my past comment to the drafting team, 
here there are:

   - benefit for the Internet, its shared infrastructure, its users
   - level of support of ICANN's mission: improve the stability, 
security, and global interoperability of the Internet.
   - global benefits vs. local benefits (e.g. is this funding going to 
help all Internet users or just a limited population ?)
   - is it work for the Internet "common" (i.e. software or services 
usable by all free of charge - including not paying with your personal 
information or your personal time avoiding commercial ;)
   - is the beneficiary population served under-represented on the 
Internet
   - long terms benefits vs. short terms results (hence the importance of 
funding infrastructure oriented things)
   - scaling effects: a relatively small funding having rippling benefits 
on billions of users
   - which layer of the Internet does it cover ?
       - physical (e.g. optic cable, wifi, dsl, router),
       - middleware (ip, dns, http, html, etc - required much more 
details to analyse potential CoI),
       - application (search, social platform, content e.g. wikipedia)
   - difficulty to get funded by usual granters (such as gov, large 
foundations, which don't care about the Internet when it's not their 
enemy).


Once we've live up enough criteria, we can catalog them, and start 
evaluating and prioritizing them wrt to the granting agency goals.


3. Safeguards to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the
framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect relevant 
legal
and fiduciary constraints?

I think we should start by studying those safeguards in the context of 
the granting agency being implemented within ICANN.


4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe for the funds
allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds?

Regarding the timeline of this group, it could go very fast if we can 
pick the internal solution (e.g. a new ICANN Office).

Regarding the funds, I am somewhat familiar with the European Commission 
Framework program, which disburse millions each year to the R&D 
community, and I would advocate their approach (for a given work 
program, which lasts a few years, and from a high altitude - I'm sure 
it's similar with DARPA):
  - come up with a strategic plan (what this group is going I think, i.e. 
the guidelines/mission I mentioned above, independent of the legal 
nature of the agency)
  - do several calls, e.g. every 6 months, each with with one or a few 
given focus (e.g. content oriented, dns middleware), USD20M each, so 3 
to 5 years of activity altogether (unless more auctions are coming in).


5. What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in
place as part of this framework for fund allocations?

I don't foresee any issue whereby an individual (even representing an 
organization, like me) would raise a CoI in their participation and 
their advocating a funding priority vs. another, since the group works 
on consensus.

If a group of participants manages to push a priority one way, and it 
happens that they all belong to the same "area" (hence the importance of 
describing the criteria delimiting the areas), then someone could raise 
a CoI for the group.

6. Any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing
economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under
represented groups?

I think it's an important criteria, but beyond the organizations 
location, we should look at the beneficiaries'. Global organizations 
typically have programs in dev countries and for minorities, and fund 
can be earmarked within them.

7. Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals,
or work with another entity e.g. a foundation created for this
purpose?

If that's what the board wants, then yes. Somehow, it will depend on the 
trust in and solidity of the strategic plan given to the grant agency, 
i.e. if the safeguards and criteria are good enough then ICANN may live 
with post-funding decision reporting only. In any case, I would start in 
the first couple of years with the board in the loop for all final 
funding decisions (every 6 months, no big overhead), once the granting 
agency has done its work and think the projects are OK (I think the 
board will also want to know which project have failed the evaluation 
threshold).


8. What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate
level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this
charter?

As small as possible. And not based on % commission of the grants 
disbursed but on the real work to be performed by the agency. If the 
ICANN internal option is taken, then IMO a few additional staff, 3 to 5 
(fixed cost) would be needed.


9. What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide
distribution of the proceeds?

A reviewing committee with nominated positions (board, so/ac, vip) using 
the services of independent experts hired by the agency to evaluate the 
proposals (against the strategic objectives of each funding call). The 
evaluations should be as formal as possible, public, with grids of 
objective criteria, notes given over a numeric scale by the experts, 
with their rationales, etc.
The agency would have to manage the formation and maintenance of the 
committee and the pool of experts used in each call (i.e. every 6 
months, so a continous activity)

Note that I think this is part of the design phase, not the 
implementation phase (described in my answer to Q1 above). We should 
describedhow the committee and the expert system should be dealt with 
regardless of whether we need to create a separate agency or do it 
within ICANN. The case of partnering with an existing granting agency 
would limit us in that regard since they will want to use their existing 
committee and experts and what not.



10. To what extent could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part
thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?

I thought it was an axiom of the auction benefit funds that none of it 
would go to the ICANN budget. So to me, neither ICANN nor its 
constituencies (inasmuch as they operate under the ICANN budget) should 
be allowed to apply for this funding.

11. Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible
later adjustments to the framework following the completion of the
CCWGs work? e.g. to accommodate changes which may occur that
affect the original recommendations (for example, changes to legal
and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s mission)?

Yes, and having the agency within ICANN, at arm's length, literally, is 
the easiest way to solve that issue. I've also replied to question 10 in 
light of the flexibility brought by having the agency as a new ICANN 
"body": if in the future ICANN (or its existing so/ac) is short of cash, 
then it will be easier to revise the funding agency strategic plan.







More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list