[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions

[John Levine]

> Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public
> charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the
> money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact
> meaningless in our case.
> 
> It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what
> will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced).

I believe that this is supposed to say that ICANN establishes a captive 
foundation as a subsidiary.

Having done exactly that at ISOC, I can say that for the CCWG's purposes, 
giving away a one-time pile of money, this mechanism is inferior in every 
way to mechanism A.  It costs more, takes longer, has a lot more 
bureaucratic overhead, and can do no more or no less than mechanism A. 
As Alan notes, it has no tax benefits.  It is a waste of everyone's time 
to pursue it further.

If anyone has a concrete reason why they believe this would be a good 
idea, and is reasonably familiar with US non-profit tax law so they 
understand what's involved, I would like to hear about it.

R's,
John

PS: ISOC's situation is quite different and it makes sense for us. If 
anyone wants details write me privately.