[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions

[Nasrat Khalid]

Hi Everyone,



I wasn't able to make it to the call due to another conference call.
However, I did go through the audio adding to the previous knowledge that
was shared and the email from Daniel is also very helpful.



I would like to add on the discussion in the call regarding the experience
and global knowledge/research on the disbursement of such amount of funds
for a global initiative. Given my experience of working with international
funds focused in the sector of 'development' the many layers of
Organisations involved to actually bring a change on the ground are pretty
diverse. The few models that is in work for disbursement of funds in the
development sector that could be looked at could be for instance, the donor
model where the acting organisation only puts and follows procedures for
their clients (which in this case would actually be the beneficiary too) in
order to disburse... or, another model could be that of building a trust
fund that has a very minimal operational cost which can drive different
projects concurrent to each other. The trust fund also could tackle the
doubt with the ratio of auctions that may or may not happen in the future
as it could provide a controlled flow of disbursement.



It is important to try to learn the different ways of how such major amount
of funds could be disbursed. I'm also pretty glad that we have reached out
within the ICANN community and hopefully will further reach out to external
Organisations too. From my experience working in Afghanistan in the
development sector; certainly, given that the development sector has
managed to disburse funds in billions through these models there is some
knowledge that I can share but others I could try to reach out to..



Also, glad that I joined the group, it is my second interaction with any
ICANN activity after my very recent ICANN fellowship experience. Hopefully
my contributions are useful.



Thanks,

Nasrat

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170130/7167ccf4/attachment.html>