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

[Maureen Hilyard]

I (personally) strongly agree with Marilyn's criteria of what we are
expecting of the mechanism. It is what several of us have been insisting on
as a bottom line, for 2.5 years already?... how time flies.

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, 5:53 AM Marilyn Cade, <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mechanism C is a new foundation, with independence from ICANN.
> Mechanism D is different, but is not still under consideration.  So, let's
> not even go there.
>
> So, we are not reopening Mechanism D, but it is important to understand
> that in the discussions, Mechanism C is an independent foundation, not
> controlled by ICANN Org; not controlled by ICANN Board, and not controlled
> by ICANN community, but advised by each, as is appropriate -- e.g
> consistent with ICANN mission; ensuring that risks do not reflect back to
> ICANN Org; are not influenced by Board or community other than in advisory
> capacity. AND, ensure that there are not anti trust or IRS implications to
> ICANN Org.
>
> We have still to do the due diligence work on the mechanisms that are
> 'nominated', and that has to be independent, not opinion based, and not
> limited to ICANN Org staff but uses experts who can do the due diligence
> needed for the mechanisms that are then put forward to the community.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2019 10:40 AM
> *To:* Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>; Vanda Scartezini <
> vanda at scartezini.org>; Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com>; Aikman-Scalese,
> Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>; Elliot
> Noss <enoss at tucows.com>
> *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on
> the Auction Proceeds Draft
>
> Sam, Option C, but an established foundation instead of a new one is
> Option D which I believe we have already discarded.
>
> Sure, we can put it back on the table even though I believe it was
> discarded for valid reasons.
>
> I do note that as of last week, this CCWG had been meeting for exactly 2.5
> years. If we continually reopen closed issues this CCWG will outlive us
> all! And we will never use the funds for "good stuff".
>
> Alan
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On July 30, 2019 7:28:58 AM EDT, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you Alan,
>
> We mainly agree and I understand that the grant decision process will be
> "outside of ICANN" in the sense that in either A or C there will be no
> scope for interventions by any element of the ICANN community. I have
> suggested (just now in response to comments by Marilyn Cade) that a
> timeline be set for a review of lessons learned, and in the mean time if
> there are any subsequent auction proceeds, they be held back until after
> that review.
>
> My one differing view is the hope that under Option C ICANN look to the
> existing not-for-profit granting organizations and seek a contractual
> collaboration for going forward, and that it not try to set up a brand new
> entity. The ICANN community has already worries about challenges of ramping
> up, then ramping down, a unit within ICANN. The challenges of recruiting
> proper expertise for a completely new entity with a finite life are equally
> challenging. Start up costs, in money and time, would be considerable, and
> recruiting proper personnel would be a challenge.
>
> One strength we have within ICANN is that, even taking the private
> interests of some stakeholder groups into account, we tend to reach
> consensus and try to make the best of the policy decisions we decide on.
> :-) *Maybe ICANN has a future, with a new line of business, consulting
> with national governments to help them move beyond confrontation and
> stalemate to consensus and some degree of actually policy making.* :-)
>
> Sam
> On 7/29/2019 11:10 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> Sam, a few corrections.
>
> You say:
>
> Lastly, in addition to the issue of required independence and Option A,
> there is the challenge of amassing the appropriate expertise to properly
> and efficiently administer the granting process within a unit of ICANN
> itself. One has to weigh those costs against Option C, where for a
> management fee the administrative process is transferred to a competent
> entity.
>
>
> The difference between A and C is that in A, the entity administering the
> entire project is within ICANN (subject to what it might choose to
> outsource) and in C, it is in a brand new entity that we will create - no
> existing expertise.
>
> In both A and B, the actual application analysis and grant decision will
> be outside of ICANN.
>
> Although in theory there might be future auction proceeds, one of the
> premises of our entire work is that this is a one-time bonanza that will
> not be rrepeated and we should expect the funds to be used up in some
> (finite) time.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190730/425f7283/attachment.html>