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

Emily Barabas emily.barabas at icann.org
Thu Nov 21 18:26:48 UTC 2019

For reference, the timeline discussed at ICANN66 is attached.

Kind regards,

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 19:25
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN

Hi Anne,

Thanks for your question. Correct, during discussions in the face-to-face meeting, the CCWG agreed to hold the poll prior to the public comment period, so that it has the opportunity to refine recommendations about the preferred mechanism(s) before seeking public comment.

We expect to be able to share the updated report tomorrow based on the most recent comments received and also open the poll tomorrow. The poll will close on Tuesday 3 December. The report will then be updated based on poll results and put out for public comment. The CCWG will have an opportunity to finalize the contents of the report (including recommendations) after it considers input received through public comment.

Kind regards,

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 19:17
To: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN

Thank you Sam.  I agree with your observations, but my understanding is that the survey of Chartering Organizations comes before  the public comment is received.  So I am asking these questions in relation to analysis I need to provide to the CSG.
Does the survey precede the receipt and analysis of public comment and is that the right way to go?
Thank you,

From: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 5:56 PM
To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>; Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN


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.


    <rest deleted>


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191121/ef25b469/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft timeline - 6 November 2019.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37033 bytes
Desc: Draft timeline - 6 November 2019.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191121/ef25b469/Drafttimeline-6November2019-0001.pdf>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list