[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Sep 5 00:34:02 UTC 2017
Ditto.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-09-04 17:04, Anthony Harris wrote:
> I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked
> if this runs off the tracks.
>
> Tony Harris
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>
> I agree to a point Erica.
>
> And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
>
> I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have
> seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing
> ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost
> sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the
> value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own
> personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or
> encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted
> mission must be pushed back on by the community.
>
> We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where
> we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of
> the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission
> into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does.
> To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had.
> And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at
> risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside
> of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years
> of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain
> from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is
> much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
>
> If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should
> seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest
> bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the
> community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and
> where the funds can be disbursed to.
>
> *From:*Erika Mann [mailto:erika at erikamann.com
> <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>]
> *Sent:* 04 September 2017 19:20
> *To:* Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org <mailto:danield at w3.org>>
> *Cc:* Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; James Gannon
> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>;
> ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>
> Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
>
> personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to
> bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only
> postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the
> implementation phase of the fund.
>
> I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution
> that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the
> other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow
> project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
>
> The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory
> paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing
> of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
>
> BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support
> truly important projects, for example in the security and software
> area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas,
> for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would
> like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
>
> Thank you for your comments!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Erika
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org
> <mailto:danield at w3.org>> wrote:
>
> On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
>
> I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's
> position is a
> paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it
> can do to
> support the ICANN mission based on its current financial
> position.
>
>
> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an
> impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission
> ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy
> enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a
> large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application
> process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
>
> That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do
> more to support
> the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
>
>
> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN
> community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to
> give them back to the board directly, given that the board is
> driven by the community ?
>
> Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate
> some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to
> some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process
> IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the
> granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation
> would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for
> ICANN/its mission).
>
>
>
>
>
> Best, Jon
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon
> <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>
> Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the
> response! But I think what the board is saying (And
> indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the
> funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core
> values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of
> that, the mission and core values must be changed,
> which being very honest is not something that will
> happen in the short or medium term future and
> certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>] On
> Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler
> Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23
> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com
> <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>
> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply
> to CCWG-AP
>
> Thanks Erika.
>
> To me, the important bit is this one:
> ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions
> that the enumerated mission statement places on the
> outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental
> question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the
> ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission
> that the ICANN community developed through the
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
>
> I think our current discussions on Open Internet
> description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the
> mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e.
> only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
>
> If we can get consensus on this point, then we can
> start making a case in front of the ICANN community
> that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
>
> - they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN
> regular operational budget, but are legally restricted
> to be spent only on these operational items (mission
> listing). That's a paradox in itself.
> - they are supposed to be used for the good of the
> Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the
> Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the
> ICANN mission
> - they are a one time event and extending the scope
> of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission
> will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself.
> - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value
> to ICANN (and its
> mission) to do a scope extension for these funds
> - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws:
> "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS
> and the operational stability, reliability, security,
> global interoperability, resilience, and openness of
> the DNS and the Internet"
> covers our vision of scope extension pretty well
> since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the
> operational stability, reliability, security, global
> interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the
> Internet".
>
>
> On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
> herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
>
> We will have a first exchange on Thursday this
> week, during our CCWG
> AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply,
> saying that we will
> discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
>
> Best,
> Erika
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
> <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>
> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com
> <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao
> <chiao at brandma.co <mailto:chiao at brandma.co>>,
> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
> <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>, Marika
> Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Icann-board
> ICANN <icann-board at icann.org
> <mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>,
> Avri Doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>,
> "Sarah B. Deutsch"
> <sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com
> <mailto:sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>>, Board Operations
> <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org
> <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>>, Sally Costerton
> <sally.costerton at icann.org
> <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner
> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>, Lauren
> Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org
> <mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org>>
>
> Dear Erika and Ching,
>
> Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017
> on behalf of the
> Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction
> Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
> in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
>
> On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that
> we are aligned in
> our thinking regarding the points discussed in the
> original email.
> Specifically, in response to your letter, please
> find attached a
> letter including additional acknowledgements and
> requested
> clarifications.
>
> Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/366cd25f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list