[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles
erika at erikamann.com
Thu Apr 12 15:56:32 UTC 2018
Hi Daniel -
Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:
*We're tasked* to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be
developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete
CCWG text below.
*We're not tasked* in recommendations or determination with regard to
specific funding decision.
Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding
recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work.
This phase we call 'implementation phase'.
CCWG AP complete task (
"The CCWG *is tasked with developing a proposal(s)* for consideration by
the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) *on the mechanism that
should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds.*
That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.
As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal
and fiduciary principles
[DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt
status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of
interest.* The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations
with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific
organizations or projects are to be funded or not).*
The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to
and provide recommendations on the following questions1
into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary
constraints outlined in the charter:
1. What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be
designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction
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 ICANNserves?
3. What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of
the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal
and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for
the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of
5. What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in
place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
6. Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from
developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or
7. Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or
delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a
foundation created for this purpose?
8. What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level
of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
9. What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide
distribution of the proceeds?
10. To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a
constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
11. Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible
adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and
implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the
As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan
and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an
Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be
submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The
will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has
committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not
believe that it can accept a recommendation.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:
> Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation
> review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario
> we're looking at.
> On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
>> DEAR ALL -
>> WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE
>> HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE
>> LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
>> HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH
>> SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
>> * IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND
>> FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF
>> REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM
>> TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS
>> PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY
>> WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT
>> EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU
>> REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE
>> MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE
>> MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS
>> THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL
>> WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION,
>> THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON
>> WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE
>> DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE
>> IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY
>> MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
>> * ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT
>> LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR.
>> WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO
>> THIS DISCUSSION.
>> * IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE
>> THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
>> ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE
>> WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE
>> THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO
>> NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON
>> – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE
>> ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE
>> SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> * SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS
>> SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN
>> THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO
>> WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS
>> ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION
>> FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
>> * OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS
>> TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT
>> NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS
>> SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN
>> RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO
>> THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US
>> KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF
>> WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN
>> THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON
>> THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
>> WARMEST REGARDS,
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds