[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Daniel Dardailler
danield at w3.org
Thu Jul 12 14:48:33 UTC 2018
Similar feeling here, my experience as granter (that is, proposing a
program, running the calls, evaluation, followup) was in a small
organization, W3C, and it was pretty light in terms of internal costs,
we were basically doing a couple of meetings per year, with a solid grid
of criteria that anyone was able to look at. Our role was mainly going
into re-explaining the granting rules, so I suggest the operational
group starts asap with this task.
On 2018-07-12 15:40, Elliot Noss wrote:
> Fwiw, and because I will struggle to get a longer answer drafted
> without getting into trouble while on vacation (regrets today), it
> seems obvious to me that there will be low-cost and low-startup time
> for options 1 & 2. Those are part of the attraction. They are the
> simplest models with the straightest line from where we are now to
> having them operational.
>
> The experiences of nominee, cira and SIDN all demonstrate this. We
> also have advantages over all of those groups as they did not have the
> built-in army of volunteers that ICANN has. And yes of course all of
> us volunteers are overworked, but that will be the problem of the
> least-interesting PDP, not this role!
>
> I suggested in Panama that there was a difference in orientation. I
> think that Marilyn sees "the real work of managing a grants making
> activity, or tracking and reporting on grants” as much more
> complicated than I do. I know that Marilyn bases this (honestly held)
> belief on her experiences. I base my belief on my experiences. Hers
> are (usefully in many contexts) with large organizations like AT&T.
> Mine are more in startup environments. I do NOT want to compete for
> who is right (it is like arguing religion except through the lens of
> CVs). I do think it useful for us as a group to understand what the
> two belief systems are.
>
> With the best of intentions……….
>
> EN
>
>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
>>
>> Marilyn - we certainly can pass these questions on to Sarah Berg but
>> it might be more appropriate to pass them on to our legal and finance
>> team.
>>
>> Let's discuss it later,
>> Erika
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood
>>> that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again:
>>>
>>> What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is
>>> low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no
>>> sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for
>>> ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a
>>> grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants.
>>>
>>> I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each
>>> and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that
>>> increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit
>>> status includes such functions, under California law.
>>>
>>> Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and
>>> accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored
>>> in my view by the consultant.
>>>
>>> "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of
>>> funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as
>>> ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for
>>> grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN
>>> will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to
>>> allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc.
>>> is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making
>>> and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff,
>>> with time specific contracts?
>>>
>>> How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is
>>> somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight?
>>>
>>> What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in
>>> Grant making/grant review/etc.?
>>>
>>> Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in
>>> the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission
>>> and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my
>>> experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a
>>> variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the
>>> core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant
>>> making/management/evaluation of outcomes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they
>>> are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities
>>> that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the
>>> Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How
>>> did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was
>>> 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the
>>> consultant propose that the process would work for using existing
>>> staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing
>>> Board members be to take on internal review of
>>> grants/review/management?
>>>
>>> How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the
>>> usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can
>>> "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not
>>> a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand
>>> that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who
>>> receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of
>>> projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that
>>> is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will
>>> naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps
>>> creates repetitional risks.
>>>
>>> I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with
>>> those.
>>> Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the
>>> need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The
>>> consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC
>>> [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal
>>> process within ICANN would fulfill this.
>>>
>>> I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need
>>> to review for human rights implications.
>>> If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal
>>> process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think
>>> having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face
>>> test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great
>>> answers to my questions.
>>>
>>> Marilyn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM
>>> To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds
>>> CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>>>
>>> Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent
>>> prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not
>>> necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could
>>> please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these
>>> on together with the one below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01
>>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>,
>>> "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>>> meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues
>>>
>>>
>>> During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62,
>>> one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself
>>> regarding the need to review all grants for human rights
>>> implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but
>>> wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more
>>> information. This would add significant review criteria to grant
>>> proposal reviews.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I
>>> raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to our call.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marilyn Cade
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>
>>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM
>>> To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction
>>> Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the
>>> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12
>>> July at 14.00 UTC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday
>>> 12 July at 14.00 UTC:
>>>
>>>
>>> • Roll Call
>>> • Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
>>> • Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
>>> • Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version
>>> to be shared by staff shortly)
>>> • Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg -
>>> ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic
>>> Programs (see attached)
>>> • Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
>>> • Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00
>>> UTC)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list