[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items

Mon Apr 8 18:09:43 UTC 2019

IMO, it doesn't matter much if ICANN has funded an initiative in the past,
or even is currently funding a given initiative. The arbitrary label (and
its wide corevage of a given technical field), given to the initiative at
one point in time, for instance UA, shouldn't preclude some projects to be
funded in this area.

What matters (in addition to being in service of ICANN mission, but we can
assume this is the case since we're talking about something ICANN has or is
already funding) is that:
 - the existing initiative doesn't cover any ICANN operational costs (that
is, staff salary, meetings, etc) but something that is already an outside
measure of some sort, e.g. grants going to external parties, or their mgnt
done by third-parties.

- there is no double spending of any kind (this would just be illegal)

So if tomorrow, the team in charge of disbursing the existing ICANN UA
grants (some hundreds of K) wants to apply with the Auctions benefits grant
agency (for some millions, and a much bigger project maybe), I don't see
why they should be prevented to do it.

I think we need a clearer definition of what's in the ICANN operational
budget and what's not in it (but is still something paid by ICANN, maybe on
a non-regular time basis, and for reasons identified as new issues that
need external actions).

For instance, the ICANN UA program funding is a reaction to the unforeseen
difficulties user agents (e.g. browsers, mailers) have with sending
non-ascii strings to DNS resolvers. It requires more that just internal
ICANN committee work, and it will hopefully stop being relevant when all
the relevant specs and software are fixed.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:32 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I do have some suggestions that do not need to replace the "example" list
> but augment it
>
> I propose a short discussion on the following as one of the small group
> drafters:
>
> Example: ICANN has cut short funding for CROP, which is a program
> available to each constituency/SG, that used to have up to five annually,
> with 1 -2 out of region, to do awareness/recruitment. It is now only 3, and
> in region.
>
> My suggestion is that funding applications from constituencies/SGs/SO/ACs
> that are similar in purpose should be accepted if they meet the "consistent
> with ICANN's core mission and activities" criteria.
>
> Rationale:
> Building awareness and recruitment into engagement at ICANN takes many
> forms, and the Fellowship Program is not really. an effective modality for
> the BC, or the contracted parties, as analysis of that program shows, even
> as it brings different value.  Bringing a speaker with expertise to a
> national or sub regional event that can explain ICANN from the "community"
> perspective brings significant value. Proposals could be limited in number
> and limited to $5,000 per event.
>
> Example: ICANN has cut and limited community funding for bringing together
> community groups at external IG events such as Internet Governance Forum;
> RIR events; IEEE and IETF events -- all of which build engagement. Events
> that are domain registry/registrar focused are assumed not to need funding
> but in reality, to build the DNS business in developing countries and LDCs,
> some travel sponsorships for qualified and committed participants could
> spark more DNS suppliers back at the national and sub regional levels.
>
> Applications for engagement in a wide number of events -- ranging from
> IGF, to national and sub regional IGFs, to technical events, to specially
> focused DNS business development events with rationale for benefit and
> contribution to the ICANN mission and core principles should be accepted
>
> Note: Although ICANN Org Engagement seems to have pretty unlimited funding
> for their staff and for Board members to travel, without much transparency,
> programs that support the community continue to be cut.
>
> Example: Community engagement in standards entities -- ranging from WWW,
> to IETF, to IEEE to new approaches, such as Moz:lla's work on Ethics in AI
>
> Proposals that support engagement and even hosting of events that broaden
> and deepen engagement are great examples that could be supported
>
> Example: Scholars focused on research that advance technical areas that
> affect ICANN's mission and core activities.
>
> This would require advice from SSAC and other experts, including from
> IAB/IETF, WWW; IEEE, and more but could provide a category that
> applications could be submitted
>
> Example: National and sub regional activities that affect the Internet and
> ICANN's core mission
> This is already addressed, I think. but just want to reinforce it as a
> core priority
>
> Example: Advancing how Youth and Children  can benefit from the Internet
> I am not going to elaborate much on this but it could be access projects
> that connect the unconnected; it could e about bringing in youth voices to
> ICANN or other IG events that ICANN participates in, such as the national
> IGFs.
>
> Example: Engaging elected and appointed policy makers -- advancing
> awareness
> Increasingly, elected and appointed policy makers are asking how to
> regulate the Internet and this affects ICANN's role.  Examples like the
> Internet Congressional Caucus and a similar initiative in Europe have
> brought parliamentarians forward as champions of the Internet and ICANN.
> Proposals from a national level to engage with Parliamentarians and key
> Ministries at the national level to advance endorsement of ICANN's role
> should be accepted.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 8, 2019 2:35 AM
> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items
>
> On 07-04-19 23:03, John R Levine wrote:
>
> I agree 100% with John.
>
>         Julf
>
> > UASG always ends the year with unspent money.  It doesn't need any more,
> > and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace
> > existing ICANN funding.
> >
> > I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move
> > on.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190408/57a4d39b/attachment-0001.html>