[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Daniel Dardailler danield at w3.org
Tue Sep 5 15:04:15 UTC 2017


On 2017-09-05 16:37, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Daniel
> 
> Kindly find inline:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 on all Alan wrote.
>> 
>> I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change
>> crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to
>> convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a
>> one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of
>> the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its
>> granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that
>> are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to
>> support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on
>> the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why
>> the community would think doing this one-time exception would
>> endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
> 
> SO: I am really not sure why you think ICANN support of Open Internet
> is out of her scope in the first place? Section IV of her mission does
> make that within scope. So i don't think ICANN will be out of scope if
> they support such effort. I will like to hear why you(or any of our
> colleagues) think it will be out of scope for them.

The way I read Section iv is that it's focused on the IANA 
protocol/names registration. There is nothing in there that would allow 
e.g. the development of new protocols (and names) by the SDO.


> 
> Regards
> 
>> On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>> I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that
>> will
>> endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
>> 
>> However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects
>> that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can
>> do
>> is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the
>> money
>> into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in
>> this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could
>> just
>> allow ICANN itself to oversee.
>> 
>> There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, 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 > 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]
>> Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20
>> To: Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; James Gannon
>> <james at cyberinvasion.net >; 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>
>> 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
>> 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] On Behalf Of Daniel
>> Dardailler
>> Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23
>> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
>> Cc: 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>
>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
>> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao
>> <chiao at brandma.co>,
>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org >
>> Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, Marika Konings
>> < marika.konings at icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN
>> <icann-board at icann.org >,
>> Avri Doria <avri at apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch"
>> < sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>, Board Operations
>> < Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>, Sally Costerton
>> < sally.costerton at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner
>> < Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, Lauren Allison
>> <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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] [1]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] [1]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] [1]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] [1]
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GEJ3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+NLP7WK5p
> 
>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> 
> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] [1]
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
> 
> --
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> _alt email: [2]seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng_
>> 
>>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
>>> action!
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> [2] http://goog_1872880453


More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list