[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reminder - input on remaining charter questions by 9 July 2018

Sun Jul 8 16:36:06 UTC 2018

On 2018-07-04 16:05, Marika Konings wrote:
> Reminder: CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses
> to the charter questions and provide input to questions identified by
> 9 July 2018:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit
> [1].
> 
> To facilitate your review, hereby the outstanding items staff
> identified and shared during the last CCWG meeting:

Thanks for the online input option, here are my answers.

> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 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?

The safeguards should be put in place in the operational framework. I 
would suggest that a first round of expert evaluators (of proposals to 
be funded) makes its ranking based on several criteria, such as benefits 
for the open and interoperable internet, the furthering of the ICANN 
mission, etc., and of course, the "in service of the mission" bit, and 
that a second round of project approvals, done by a small ICANN board 
sub-committee, finalize the decision and present the projects to be 
funded to the board, with their arguments, and mostly the mission 
constraints in mind.

> 
>  	* Need to determine whether additional/different safeguards need to
> be put in place at the project oversight level. See also charter
> question #9.
> 	* Mechanism 1: Who would be responsible for the oversight? And how
> could a separation from ICANN be arranged to avoid capture of funds
> for ICANN ORG related purposes? What safeguards will the department
> have when policies and procedures to manage it are being designed by
> ICANN?

Since each project accepted will have to go through the board, which is 
full of watch dogs already (both procedural and community based), I 
think the oversight by the ICANN board itself is enough to avoid capture 
of funds for ICANN ORG benefits.

> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 5 - What conflict of interest provisions and
> procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund
> allocations?
> 
>  	* For Mechanisms 1-3, what is the model for separation of staff?

Why separate staff ? if all is done by ICANN, and no project funding 
ever goes to ICANN ORG (except for the question of the reserve), there's 
no CoI involved.

> 	* For Mechanisms 2-3, how can the department benefit from services /
> expertise inside of ICANN Org and how are those services / expertise
> then paid for, is this also expected to be funded from auction
> proceeds?

We're operating under the assumption that ICANN ORG can and already 
operates a by-project accounting system (also called analytic 
accounting), so this issue, if there is one, is not new. How does IANA 
benefit from ICANN ORG legal or comm for instance ?

> 	* Do we need a description of goals and objectives the fund should
> support? Or is the mission driven environment, in combination with
> bylaws, public interest, etc, sufficient?

I don't understand this question, it seems to defeat our years of work 
on scoping, the open internet, the examples, etc. We have the preamble 
for description of goals and objectives.

> 	* if we agree to define goals and objectives, how do we want to do
> this?

If we agree ? Isn't it what half of the CCWG work was about ? (the other 
half being the mechanism choice).

> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 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 original recommendations (for example, changes
> to legal and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s
> mission)?

The funding being driven by the mission/by-laws, it's clear that if 
these change, some review will have to be made. I would suggest a review 
after a year of operations, and then every other years.

> 
> 	* What type of review mechanism should be put in place to carry out
> such a review – is this part of the oversight provided by ICANN Org
> / Board or is a separate process / mechanism needed? Is the process /
> mechanism needed different depending on the mechanism chosen?

Yes, same domain as oversight, evolution, crisis mgnt, this is done by a 
board committee and the board.

> 
>  	* Comment: ICANN org or Board would need the ability to conduct
> sufficient level of review in order to meet fiduciary
> responsibilities.

Yes, and that's easier when closely integrated within ICANN, mechanism 
#1.
> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 8 - What aspects should be considered to determine
> an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined
> in this charter?

I already mentioned this point. There is a high level overhead, made of 
grant mgnt (and decision makers) and for that we need to get an idea of 
how many projects per year are going to be funded, and how many Project 
Officers (grant organization personnel) are needed for that. Then we can 
add 7% overhead for secretariat, comm, system, finance, legal, the base 
overhead.

I would start with an Auction board sub-committee to clear out these 
questions (since we haven't been able to answer them) and some board 
agenda items, and then see how this scales up as more projects are 
funded. In a word, be flexible since it's the first timer ICANN is going 
to do that.

> 
>  	* Need to be specific here about what is meant with overhead –
> overhead for running the mechanism/program, or overhead for the
> administration of projects, or both?

Both. Overhead at the board committee level expenses, grant mgnt (PO and 
experts), and admin/legal/system/etc.

> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 9 - What is the governance framework that should
> be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? The issues
> addressed by a governance framework

Governance based on a clear and transparent process, clear calls 
scoping, deadlines, agenda, rules for disbursing, and clearly pointing 
the roles of independent evaluators, of the board (and committee), of 
the staff PO, etc. There should be some appeal in place, and all the 
projects should be public (in how much they received, from how many 
funders, etc).

> 
>  	* How may the implementation of the requirements differ between the
> different mechanisms?

Same high-level requirements, with more overhead grease if done 
externally, and more risk that things go bad scope-wise.

> 	* How might governance committees, steering committees, oversight
> councils, or advisory boards mentioned by experts play into each
> model?

Up to the ICANN Board Auction committee to design (at this point).

> 
> 	* For Mechanism 2, what is the allocation of responsibility in this
> model between ICANN and collaborating organizations?
> 
>  	* Comment: Under 2, ICANN handles grantmaking in-house (i.e. money
> to fund applicant wiring from ICANN-managed bank account) while Under
> 4, existing charitable org handles fund distribution (with ICANN's
> supervision; money to fund applicant wiring from external-org bank
> account).
> 
>  	* For Mechanism 3-4, what would this look like in practice when
> working with an established entity? How closely would ICANN need to be
> involved in elements of the governance framework listed above. Which
> elements CAN be delegated?
> 
> 	* CHARTER QUESTION 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?

To no extent, except for the reserve adjustment, if the community agrees 
to it.

> 
> 	* Could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, such
> as an SO or AC, be an applicant under any circumstances? CCWG may need
> to confirm with ICANN Org/Board if this may be possible.

If this is to cover costs that otherwise would have been born by ICANN 
ORG, then it's out of scope.
Same negative reponse if this is to just re-dispatch the money somewhere 
else outside ICANN.
It's probably the case that the AC and SO will have project ideas that 
fit well with the auction scope but I think they should inform external 
parties and maybe guide them, but I can't really see how legally they 
could apply since they are ICANN.

> 
>  	* Comment: I have the impression that the Board (perhaps Asha or
> Becky) mentioned that ICANN would never be in the position as a fund
> applicant.

Except for the reserve question, which I think we should take separately 
from the auction mechanism, I don't think ICANN should be allowed to get 
a grant from this fund.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> _MARIKA KONINGS_
> 
> _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
> 
> _Email: marika.konings at icann.org  _
> 
> _ _
> 
> _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
> 
> _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [2]
> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit
> [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
> [3]
> http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds