[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft

[John Levine]

> We supported Mechanism C, and our preference has not changed. Accepting that there needs to be
> two options, Mechanism A and Mechanism C presented to the community -- still we strongly
> require that there be more fact based, and not just opinions from each of us as participants,
> presented. Thus, while any of us may have experience or preference, the CSG prefers to see
> fact based and even external reports. We do not support relying on member or participant, or
> internal ICANN staff analysis on certain areas, as for Mechanism A, given the landfall of
> chargeback costs, there could be unrecognized preferences.

Well, it's an actual fact that ISOC set up a captive foundation to handle 
its grants, and I was there while we did it.  It is not speculative to say 
that it costs more and takes longer than setting up an internal 
department.

I completely sympathize with your concerns to keep the grant making 
process independent, and avoid corrupt influences from ICANN org (in the 
sense of not following the process, not of being illegal.)  But adding a 
few extra levels of bureaucracy is not a magic bullet.  It seems to me 
that the key is that whoever does it has a management structure separate 
from existing ICANN org, not reporting to existing staff and probably not 
colocated with them.  We can do that as well with option A as option 
C.

R's,
John