Mary Uduma mnuduma at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 25 04:34:56 UTC 2018

 Dear Co-Chairs and Colleague,
I believe the Board is not wrong in the move to ensure there is a financial stability of the ICANN as an organisation.
I also believe that it would be wrong to use a contingency fund to provide for an important statutory budgetary item as the reserve fund.
In the financial palace, contingency provisions can only be touched or written back after the actual cost of the event upon which it was originally provided for had been executed and there is an unspent balance. 
I think the 100M legal fund remains untouched but any unspent balance would revert, most probably, to the "not for lCANN Budget" status.

Mary Uduma
    On Thursday, October 25, 2018, 4:04:43 AM GMT+1, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net> wrote:  
 #yiv5707595891 #yiv5707595891 -- _filtered #yiv5707595891 {panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {font-family:MingLiU;panose-1:2 2 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {font-family:New Roman;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {panose-1:2 1 6 9 0 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv5707595891 #yiv5707595891 p.yiv5707595891MsoNormal, #yiv5707595891 li.yiv5707595891MsoNormal, #yiv5707595891 div.yiv5707595891MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv5707595891 a:link, #yiv5707595891 span.yiv5707595891MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5707595891 a:visited, #yiv5707595891 span.yiv5707595891MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5707595891 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv5707595891 p.yiv5707595891msonormal0, #yiv5707595891 li.yiv5707595891msonormal0, #yiv5707595891 div.yiv5707595891msonormal0 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv5707595891 span.yiv5707595891HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv5707595891 span.yiv5707595891EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv5707595891 .yiv5707595891MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5707595891 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5707595891 div.yiv5707595891WordSection1 {}#yiv5707595891 
Dear colleagues,
As others have expressed on this thread and in previous discussions, replenish the reserves is a really good thing to do, but there are administrative processes to be able to do that, with a strategy based on the organization’s budget, not relying on money that was never intended to be used for that purpose in the first place, as per the application guide and other documents that used by the drafting team to draft our charter.
The question about replenishing the reserves with auction proceeds funds, was one of the charter questions of this group, and even if we have taken too long, or if there were no strong objections (on a poll that was inconclusive) our work is not yet completed as there is no final report yet. If the community input to our draft report comes back in support of not using the auction funds to replenish the reserves, and resort to more paused and better financial practices, those comments will just go to fill the bid cupboard of “what ifs”.
I encourage you to read the public comments received to the “Document for Public comment – Replenishment Strategy for the ICANN Reserve Fund' (open date, March 6th, 2018/closed April 25th, 2018)”. Many of those comments refer to the work of this group, recommending to wait for our report and recommendations before proceeding, to support the process of a cross community working group. Others, strongly opposed  and those that support it, did with under different conditions/amounts that what this resolution stateshttps://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reserve-fund-replenishment-06mar18/
Very disappointing indeed, but not surprising. Quite disheartening.
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net |http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 |http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
From:Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of喬敬 <chiao at brandma.co>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 9:53 am
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
I've shared the news with the ccNSO Council and am expecting further feedback. During our discussion this week (as well as in the previous meetings) there's general support of the Board's proposal of allocating part of auction fund into reserved.  
I also believe that we are expecting this and have zero problem with it. I do not see or hear we are expecting another one (i.e. ducting another portion from the remaining 70M), but I could be wrong -- and this is where I'd somehow share Robert's concern at this point. 
In addition to that, would the Board make different decision (amount of replenishment) if the community prefers mechanism C or D ? Or if it's potentially a conflict of interest issue?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:24 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

Judith, the .web proceeds are logically segregated here because it is still in question due to possible litigation or other actions. So it would not be wise to touch it. If an when it is locked in, it will revert to being available. 

The 100M that Daniel was referring to (which I think is now about 70M) is the amount still unspent from the new gTLD application revenue.

Regardless, I presume we will have a clearer picture when we see the actual motion and the accompanying rationale.


At 24/10/2018 04:22 PM, Judith Hellerstein wrote:


HI Erika,

Yes.  Like Daniel and Elliott, I do not understand why they cannot use some of the money that was set aside from the .web auction to refill the coffers. If the line was that we are just replenishing what was lost during the IANA Transition than why not take if from the .web money that was set aside. If for some reason they may find that they need all that money than possibly that could be revisited. I also am interested in learning an answer to Daniel's question


Judith Hellerstein
 _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com    Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In:  www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide    

On 10/24/2018 3:52 PM, Elliot Noss wrote:


I find myself terribly angry about this. It makes no sense both because of Daniel’s comment below and because there are other ways towards this. I don’t know that that matters.



On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:

If the board decides to take funding off the Auction benefits pot, that's their right (and maybe obligation I gather) but I think they should at least explain why the ~100M set aside for potential legal costs wrt new gTLD was not used instead.

>From the beginning the Auction benefits were labelled as "not for ICANN budget" and replenishing a reserve is clearly a budgetary action, so I'm interested in understanding which constraints on the 100M legal provision mentioned above has been evaluated as stronger that something as clear as the "not for ICANN budget" attached to the Auctions.

I'm not trying to revert this ICANN's board decision, I just want to be able to explain the decision made to outsiders.


On 2018-10-24 13:20, Erika Mann wrote:


*Dear CCWG AP colleagues - *
*Cherine Chalaby asked for a meeting this morning, October 24, to inform me
as CCWG AP Co-Chair about a resolution the Board will pass tomorrow
morning, October 25, concerning the replenishment of the Reserve Fund.
Maarten Botterman attended the meeting and Chris Disspain was present for a
short period at the beginning of the meeting.*
*To replenish the Reserve Fund, the Board resolution will request a
contribution from ICANN ORG on an annual basis (8 years), total $32
Million, and an immediate contribution from Auction Proceed, total $36
Million. These two amounts seen together would replenish the Reserve Fund
(in 8 years) to the agreed height. *
*Cherine was interested in informing us ahead of the decision and I
mentioned, that we were expecting such a move and, as far as this is
concerned, we're not surprised to see the Board passing this resolution
tomorrow and that we do appreciate his approach in informing us ahead of
passing the resolution. *
Reminder:* The* '*Document for Public comment – Replenishment Strategy for
the ICANN Reserve Fund' (open date, March 6th, 2018/closed April 25th,
2018) mentioned the following about the replenishment of the fund in
relation to the topics mentioned above: *
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-reserve-fund-replenishment-strategy-06mar18-en.pdf
< https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-reserve-fund-replenishment-strategy-06mar18-en.pdf >*
*§ Contribution from ICANN Org: Future adopted budgets could be made to
provide a contribution to the Reserve Fund on an annual basis. This would
require ICANN Org to plan each fiscal year for expenses to be lower than
funding by an amount explicitly designated for the purpose of replenishing
the Reserve Fund. Given ICANN’s funding constraints, contributions from
ICANN org to the Reserve Fund replenishment result from a reduced
allocation of ICANN’s resources to its on-going activities, in order to
produce a surplus that is allocated to the Reserve Fund. Such allocation is
and needs to continue being the subject of community engagement and input. *
*§ Auction Proceeds: ICANN currently has US$ 104 million collected from
auctions that were held as the mechanism of last resort to resolve string
contention in the new gTLD program (including investment returns). This
amount excludes US$ 132 million relating to the auction of the .WEB string
net of auction fees *
*Kind regards, *
*Erika *
*Barcelona, October 24, 2018*
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org

 _______________________________________________ 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

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org

Ching Chiao
Founder & CEO
Brandma Internet Group 
+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei 
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20181025/4c054fc1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list