[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 27 June from 15.15 - 16.45 local time

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 27 15:31:13 UTC 2018

Dear Colleagues

I have serious concerns about assumptions that appear in the Consultant's

document, dated June 18. Apologies for just now getting around to posting my questions, but life is busy, and ICANN-land life seems even busier this meeting!

First, with appreciation for the high level
more about the mechanisms , I am not at all confident of some of the "findings" and seriously disagree with a couple of points which will influence the understanding and even the position that some may take. Here are my areas of disagreement and concerns, which of course, are only my view/perspective and are subject to change, based on more information.

Mechanism I:
Control: Board Governance.

Simply saying Yes, without describing how this would work, how a Board that is elected/appoitned for a much different reason suddenly develops competence in grants management, oversight, etc. and ignores that the Board turns over significantly as the terms expire, etc..

ICANN Stakeholder Engagement;

I disagree that this is sufficiently explored.

The Community itself has conflicts of interest that would have to be taken into account in the development of an internal process.
That will take time and consideration, at a minimum.

And adds to the work of the Community, who also will bring opinions and views but not necessarily relevant skills and expertise unless there is an effective, and independent process developed. That will take extensive time.

Start Up: Minimal.
I disagree and anyone who recalls the start up of GDD, which is a separate functional group, should consider that start up is start up. Meaning there is process, procedural, new account, identification of resources, designation of staff, firewalls, etc. etc.

Even posting recruitment materials, interviews, due diligence, etc. etc.

Cost: Minimal

I disagree.

And, as we have seen with GDD, and other "divisions' at ICANN, they seem to have a propensity to grow like "Topsy", with very little awareness of the Community, once launched and operational.

Finally, listing all grants in ICANN's tax recordings is a serious amount of additional tracking, reporting, etc.

Mechanism 2: ICANN + External Organization

This seems more promising to me to examine further. I have some questions here as well.

Start up process: Minimal -- chooses a DAF partner.

Okay, sounds like a possibility to examine further. BUT, MINIMAL time sounds unrealistic.  Choosing a DAF partner will require due diligence, posting of call for proposals, evaluation, etc. etc. development of agreement, etc. etc.

Start up Cost: Minimal

I question this. It may be that ongoing costs are less than some other options, but start up costs should not be ignored, more wind down costs.

I can't tell whether all grants are listed on ICANN tax reporting or not.

Mechanism 3:

I prefer that we explore this further.
Use of an Advisory Committee of ICANN stakeholder sounds like a feasible approach for stakeholders engagement.

International capabilities: much of the mechanisms of dealing with reporting processes and responsibilities would be done external to ICANN, which is important as well for ICANN's repetitional well being and standing.

Competence: and competence can be hired, not housed within ICANN.
As to the approval process from US IRS - yes, it can take a few months, as does drafting of bylaws, but that should not be a serious problem.

The arms' length nature does improve ICANN's independence from day to day processes, but as the Foundation is based on criterial established by the Community, thus, consistency with established purpose, mission, etc. should be a central part of the bylaws.

It would be good to establish how the performance of the Foundation is assessed, and by whom and at what intervals.

Mechanism 4: External Entity
I do not consider this a good use of time to explore further. Established entities have bylaws, Boards, etc. They have missions and are already required to provide reporting, etc. around whatever their established purpose is. Such an entity would have to revise their bylaws, establish new mechanisms.  If the proposal is to donate to existing entities, either research institutions, or think tanks, or such, then such entities can apply for grants that support their core mission.

I do not agree with partnering  with academic institutions - but acknowledge that such could be grant applicants.  On the other hand, I was very surprised that the CCWG decided to even consider a  "global banking institution'. I listened to the presentation but still do not think this is a good use of our time. After all,  we are not creating a venture capital fund, using the nGLD Auction Funds, and frankly, I have been a little surprised that we spent any time discussing that idea.

thus, while I support further considering Mechanism 2 and 3, I can find no rational myself for Mechanism 4 taking further time, and I have very serious concerns about Mechanism 1.

I am providing these comments in my individual capacity, as I have not had time to consult within the CSG itself, but will be presenting my analysis within the CSG for discussion and debate after ICANN62, and before the CCWG-IG first meeting post ICANN62.

I welcome any comments from any member or participant in the CCWG-IG, of course.

And am happy to take questions about my individual analysis and perspectives.
I know we have brief time today and wanted to post my comments ahead of time.

Marilyn Cade

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:55 PM
To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 27 June from 15.15 - 16.45 local time

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for next week’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. As a reminder, remote participation details can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F6QQFBQ&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6c0fe84fb47f42d1463508d5d7b0f48c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636652077834280179&sdata=EC4ZiuJ0EiY9pmeQDeX%2B3ea07WcoSTvOS4iXzbznGac%3D&reserved=0>.

As another reminder, please review the draft responses to the charter questions and provide any comments and/or questions you may have in the google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6c0fe84fb47f42d1463508d5d7b0f48c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636652077834280179&sdata=mYtcXloO%2FS6LGuGmFguMf165XI2MTY50U%2FFLEImON9I%3D&reserved=0>) by Saturday 23 June at the latest.

Best regards,



Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group F2F Meeting – 27 June 2018 from 15.15 – 16.45 local time

  1.  Roll Call
  2.  Welcome – SOI & DOI Updates
  3.  Status Update
  4.  Review of mechanism descriptions developed by Sarah Berg (see attached)
  5.  Review of proposed responses to remaining charter questions (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6c0fe84fb47f42d1463508d5d7b0f48c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636652077834280179&sdata=mYtcXloO%2FS6LGuGmFguMf165XI2MTY50U%2FFLEImON9I%3D&reserved=0>)
  6.  Review of work plan and next steps
  7.  Confirm next meeting (Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC)

Looking forward to receiving your feedback.

Best regards,


Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann.org%2Fcourses%2Fgnso&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6c0fe84fb47f42d1463508d5d7b0f48c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636652077834280179&sdata=LuOTUywq99NFTFalZBOl8%2B0HXB9ecSdB5Cf6m80F8lA%3D&reserved=0> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Ffiles%2Fgnso%2Fpresentations%2Fpolicy-efforts.htm%23newcomers&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6c0fe84fb47f42d1463508d5d7b0f48c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636652077834280179&sdata=gXw%2BqjhanyGBP7%2BALazgJgvVglihVqAp8QvVvv9uy%2FM%3D&reserved=0>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180627/7a9ab0b3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list