[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms

Vanda Scartezini vanda at scartezini.org
Fri Nov 22 00:43:33 UTC 2019

Hi Sam, Xavier and all
As a person that in a government position supervised grant for projects selected throughout public open process I do believe Sam reasons are quite good ones- expertise on establish process, selected appropriate projects that has more change to bring good results , following on how the money are being spent , formulate framework reports that can clear and not too bureaucratic way demonstrate  how the money is spending and how the progress is pursuing is not as simple as it may appear and for not experienced people may cost nit only more money as much more time and may get not as good results as should . Alternative to have an external expert group to do so may solve majority of the problems - ICANN has enough expertise to separate activities and supervise with good results - travel for instance can be one exemple - it is not easy ( I had chance to check it in the past as chair of the audit committee)- the question here will be select a good group with expertise and capacity to distribute and control money around the world ! Being from a developing country I know quite well such difficulties -
To solve these problems we may encourage consortium projects among developed and developing countries since in research & development  world the barriers to transfer money is less complex - this is just an idea I have used in the past ..
if my experience can help I can share more detailed info in specific calls
Just my 2cents

Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPhone
Sorry for typos

On 21 Nov 2019, at 19:02, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

Thanks Xavier,

Your point 1, linking costs to the "products" being delivered, is well taken. However an estimate of total costs is not the central issue here.
It is, as you explore in your point 2, the relative costs of of the respective Mechanisms for supplying the same "products mix", those "products" being funded projects, evaluations, etc..
Let me take your arguments one at a time:

  *   RE: suggestion that A (in-house) would have lower overheads. That is not a forgone result. While ICANN might cover administrative costs at a competitive rate, it has little expertise in managing competitive grant funding, and the ongoing administration of funded projects. (how the funds are administered can be a nightmare). It also does not have the expertise for ongoing and final project evaluation, and for presenting those results in ways that ICANN org, its Board and the stakeholder communities can understand. All of that expertise will have to be bought, retained, and added to the ICANN payroll.
  *    RE: suggestion that B will result in some duplication of costs between ICANN and partner organization. That need not be the case. A partner organization would be selected based on its competencies, and Mechanism B would benefit from having that expertise "in-house", within Mechanism B. Each of the Mechanisms has similar internal work: funds distribution and evaluation, and an Accountability component. There is little reason to believe that costs, all assigned to the Mechanism, would be higher for B than for A. If such costs stood out as exceptional, that would be a red flag that something is being done wrong.
  *   RE: suggestion that C would have higher overhead costs than B. I believe it is a mistake to compare operating costs for C to B, and not count partner costs in B. While it is true that a partner organization would leverage its existing structure in B, the costs of those resources would be levied against the Mechanism's operating costs. The partner selection for B would be based on its capacity to do the work (not because it is a charity providing free services).

Lastly, one distinguishing feature as between A and B&C, especially C, is that B and C carry the potential to be ongoing activities with funding from other sources (grants, whatever). That may or may not be a significant factor.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC

On 11/21/2019 5:23 PM, Xavier J. Calvez wrote:
You are having a great productive brainstorming about costs. To feed into this brainstorming exercise, please consider the following few comments which have been made at some point, usually verbally, by the Board liaisons, Sam and I over the past 2.5 years:
1. Any estimate of costs can only be done once we know what we do. The mechanisms will need to be transformed into implementation plan with detailed design in order to be able to evaluate the costs. An illustration of such questions (please don’t comment on this example, it just an example), is the size of the grants: 1 grant of $200m is very differently managed than 200,000 grants of $1,000, with many differences in costs.
2. However, some differences and logical principles can be formulated:
- mechanisms B and C would have higher overheads costs than A, because there would be some duplication of costs between ICANN and the partner organization (mechanism B) and ICANN and the foundation (mechanism C). There is also a cost of coordinating 2 entities which exists with B and C and does not with A.
- I would expect C to have, for the same reason, higher overhead costs than B, because some of the costs in B would be shared resources since the partner organization would leverage its existing structure.
- resources directly and fully allocated to the program would probably cost the same in the 3 mechanisms: there is a requirement in not-for-profit oversight that salaries must be reasonable for the job purpose, so we would expect that across each of these mechanisms, the salaries paid to support the program itself would be somewhat similar.
- If the focus is on selecting the lowest cost mechanism, the focus would be on areas of duplication of roles and cost drivers.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.



Xavier Calvez
SVP & Chief Financial Officer
P: +1 (310) 301-5838 (Direct) | M: +1 (805) 312-0052
E: xavier.calvez at icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>
12025 Waterfront Drive, Ste 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094

< rest deleted>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
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/20191122/61dc7821/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list