[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles

Thu Apr 12 16:14:13 UTC 2018

Hello Erika, thanks for the quick answer

On 2018-04-12 17:56, Erika Mann wrote:
> 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'.

I don't remember raising any specific funding recommendations, or are 
you thinking that pushing for a guiding preamble falls in that category 
?

Someone (Vanda I think) raised the urgency of some development related 
to security/stability of the DNS resolution infrastructure, and I agree 
this is too early in the process to set aside any funding for anyone, 
but clearly this is a good idea and it should be added to the examples 
table.

I still don't understand why you want to abandon the preamble, 
apparently because it needs some work (as noted by the board, which 
never suggested to abandon it), or because the timing doesn't allow for 
it (we keep pushing our deadline for other valid reasons, like hearing 
more external experts on mechanism).

Going from an initial scope of "doing good for the internet while not 
endangering ICANN status" to "being in service of the ICANN mission" 
seems like a regression to me, we don't even talk about the Internet 
anymore (nor to mention what good means for the internet, which was the 
focus of the preamble).

> 
> Warmest regards,
> 
> Erika
> 
> CCWG AP complete task
> (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)
> 
> "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 [2][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 [3], taking
> into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary
> constraints outlined in the charter:
> 
> 	* What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be
> designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD
> Auction Proceeds?
> 	* 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?
> 	* 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?
> 	* What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any,
> for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the
> disbursements of funds?
> 	* What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put
> in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
> 	* Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from
> developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or
> under-represented groups?
> 	* 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?
> 	* What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level
> of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
> 	* What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide
> distribution of the proceeds?
> 	* 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?
> 	* 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 original recommendations?
> 
> 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 ICANNBoard 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.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 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 THE
>>> 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 TO
>>> 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 OUR
>>> 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,
>>> ERIKA
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> [2]
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425839&api=v2
> [3] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1