[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN

Sam Lanfranco sam at lanfranco.net
Wed Nov 20 00:56:11 UTC 2019


I would like to highlight several things that Anne has mentioned. We are 
of course all in support of accountability, minimizing the risk of 
disputes in the management of the auction proceeds, and support that 
costs should be managed prudently. Those apply to whatever Mechanism is 
finally selected.

As for the “many trade-offs” as between Mechanisms A, B, and C, those 
that raise or lower the desirability of individual Mechanisms are pretty 
much independent of how we sort out the accountability and risk 
management issues. The Mechanism properties and the associated 
“trade-offs” are likely to be thoroughly aired in the public comment 
period for the Final Report. Bits and pieces of those trade-offs have 
been raised in the work of the group, but now, in the comment period, is 
the time to get more specific and explicit about the strengths and 
weaknesses of the three options.

Sam Lanfranco

On 11/19/2019 7:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> Hi Alan.   I apologize  - the 3/4 vote required to amend Fundamental 
> ByLaws is for 3/4 of the Board of Directors.  The approval of the EC 
> is listed in Annex D to the ByLaws and apparently requires approval of 
> three EC Decisional Participants as well as the condition that the 
> ByLaws amendment is “(B) not objected to by more than one Decisional 
> Participant.” Annex D Section 1.4 (b) (i).  So if two Decisional 
> Participants object, we are back to “square one” as you say.  And that 
> makes the survey very important.
> To clarify,  I don’t think anyone is trying to escape Accountability. 
> Everyone agrees that grants shouldn’t be subject to being revoked and 
> that ICANN should minimize the risk of adverse action (disputes) in 
> relation to its management of Auction Proceeds.   Everyone also agrees 
> that costs should be managed prudently.
> You may think that keeping grant-making inside the ICANN organization 
> is equally safe in the above respects for ICANN, its Board of 
> Directors, and all grant recipients.   ALAC may want to support 
> Mechanism A if, in fact, it is the lowest initial investment, for that 
> reason alone.  However, I don’t think the Proposed Final Report makes 
> it clear which is the lowest cost alternative in the long run.  20 new 
> ICANN employees with benefits would be expensive and I would assume 
> they would have to be compensated from Auction Proceeds monies. It’s 
> likely easier to “Sunset” Mechanism B so you don’t have to fire 20 
> people.  Mechanism C would provide incentives for other organizations 
> and foundations to make additional contributions to an ICANN 
> charitable foundation so there are many trade-offs. I’m sure the CCWG 
> must have discussed these trade-offs over many sessions.
> The risk management issue doesn’t seem nearly as obvious to me as it 
> does to you, but many thanks for engaging in the discussion in a way 
> that helps us all clarify the considerations in advance of issuing the 
> Proposed Initial Report and conducting the survey.
> Anne
   <rest deleted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191119/39cd8f31/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list