<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Xavier,</p>
<p>Re: "While ICANN org may require to add skillset (insistance on
“may”)..."<br>
</p>
<p>With my albeit limited experience around grant giving, working at
both ends of the process, I would stress that it is an absolute
certainty that all three Mechanisms will require an appropriate
skillset that currently is not resident for Mechanism A, might
exist in Mechanism B, and would have to be build in Mechanism C.
The proper management of a competitive grants process is
complicated and demands particular skills that could not be
supplied through <span class="ILfuVd NA6bn"><span class="e24Kjd">secondment</span></span>
or redeployment from ICANN staff. <br>
</p>
<p>Sam Lanfranco <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/2019 2:49 PM, Xavier J. Calvez
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:50FD89EB-F4AF-4AC3-882B-A37C937D4C5D@icann.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:427119646;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1388077886 -720346770 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are references in this email thread
about ICANN org hiring and firing 20 people under mechanism A.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not sure where the idea of ICANN org
hiring 20 people come from nor how it was determined. ICANN
org has not produced any evaluation of incremental resource
requirements driven by any mechanism at this stage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While ICANN org may require to add skillset
(insistance on “may”) and is likely to need more resources to
address the auction proceeds distribution process, under any
mechanism, we have not produced any analysis about it at this
stage. Such analysis is dependent on many factors, including
the general level of workload of the organization during the
expected period of disbursement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Generally, ICANN org, like most
organizations, would address temporary work and activities
with temporary resources, whichever form such temporary
resources would take. In addition, under mechanism C, there is
more likelihood that the resources in the foundation be made
redundant as the distribution process winds down than in
mechanism A. In mechanism A, the level of incremental
resources would be less, and the likelihood of redundancy
would be less as result, and also because resources not needed
anymore could be reallocated within the organization as and if
needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Separately, regarding the point of risks
and control:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Under
Mechanism B and C, there are risk and costs associated with
the complexity of operating a mechanism that involves one or
several parties in addition to ICANN. Sam and I made these
points several times over the past CCWG AP meetings. I am
happy to elaborate further but the illustration used of the
discussion of PTI is very helpful as the actual IANA
functions are exactly the same before than after the
creation of PTI, but the subcontracting of most of the IANA
functions to PTI has created complexities that create risks
that require more resources, associated with the governance
around the IANA functions.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">As a
reminder to inform your discussions on mechanisms A,B and C,
I am attaching a presentation provided to this group in June
2017, notably the slide #7, which describes that ICANN’s
obligations to ensure the funds are adequately used are the
same, irrespective of the number intermediate parties
inserted between ICANN and the end user in the process.
There is not less obligations for ICANN to ensure funds are
adequately used in mechanism C but there is more risks and
costs to ensure such funds are adequately used.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Xavier<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">Xavier Calvez</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">SVP & Chief Financial
Officer</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">ICANN</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">P: +1 (310) 301-5838
(Direct) | M: +1 (805) 312-0052</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">E: </span><u><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#0563C1"><a
href="mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">xavier.calvez@icann.org</span></a></span></u><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A"> | <a
href="http://www.icann.org/"
title="http://www.icann.org/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.icann.org</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#18376A">12025 Waterfront Drive,
Ste 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Ccwg-auctionproceeds
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"><ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf
of Alan Greenberg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 8:37 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"><AAikman@lrrc.com></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">"erika@erikamann.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"><erika@erikamann.com></a>, Becky Burr
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"><becky.burr@board.icann.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"><ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction
Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At 19/11/2019 07:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
If these same decisional participants approve the entire
report allowing it to go to the Board, it would be an
interesting situation if they then refuse to support or even
object to the Bylaw.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
To be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of ALAC. In fact, the
ALAC appointed members to this CCWG have tended to have
differing opinions.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I am not sure we ever were aiming at lowest cost. There has
always been strong preferences that in some cases were despite
the costs.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
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.<br>
<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"><AAikman@lrrc.com></a>;
Erika Mann <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"><erika@erikamann.com></a>; Becky Burr
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"><becky.burr@board.icann.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds
Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<br>
<br>
<b>[EXTERNAL]<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><b>
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</b></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">See embedded
replies.<br>
<br>
At 19/11/2019 04:35 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">Thanks
Alan. It̢۪s thethe desire to set up a situation which
readily achieves the necessary 3/4 EC approval of the ByLaws
amendments that causes me to ask these clarifying questions
re the exact nature of CCWG Consensus and making that clear
in the Proposed Final Report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I'm not sure what you mean by "3/4". If memory serves me,
the approval of a Fundamental Bylaw requires the active
support of at least 3 of the 5 EC members and rejection by
no more than 1 of the 5.<br>
<br>
In this case, I do not see an obstacle to approval,
probably unanimous. Before we can get to that stage, this
CCWG will go to the chartering organizations. That is the
five EC Members plus the SSAC and RSSAC. I see real problems
going forward to the Board if most of the chartering orgs do
not approve it, so once it goes to the board for action,
most or all of the EC members will have already given their
support. If they do not do that, then I see the report
coming back to us first, before it even gets to the Board.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">Regarding
the mechanism to be chosen, there is something about the way
PTI was set up (as further described by Samantha and as
further set out in the ByLaws in Section 16) that looks very
“clean†to me in terms of clearlearly identifying
recommended ByLaws changes as to the permitted
Accountability challenges and those which will become
inapplicable.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
As far as I can see, the only relation between PTI and the
accountability measures is that the EC can object to the PTI
budget, can object to ICANN trying to divest itself of PTI
(in a variety of ways) and how ICANN handles recommendation
to PTI reviews. The other EC actions all relate to things in
ICANN proper. None of what we are talking about is an
attempt to stop the EC from challenging how auction funds
are handles on a global basis. The Bylaw change we are
discussing is for how applicants can (or rather cannot)
challenge.<br>
<br>
The EC will always have control over the auction process on
a global scale because they always have the authority to
remove the entire ICANN Board. We cannot (or rather will
not) change that.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">In
addition, I note that Accountability Work stream 2
implementation is not complete. So, for example, having
worked actively on one of the Subgroups in Accountability
Workstream 2, I have to ask how the Chartering Organizations
may consider the CCWG recommendations in relation to the
risk of challenges once the Work stream 2 Recommendations
are finalized and implemented. Would there be, for
example, an available challenge re violation of the ByLaws
(as amended to implement Workstream 2) based on an alleged
Human Rights violation by ICANN in the administration of the
Auction Funds? It seems to me that if ICANN employs 20
additional staff as contemplated in Mechanism A, that risk
is increased. (20 staff is assumed across all Mechanisms.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I see no impact regardless of mechanism. ICANN will be
responsible to ensuring it meets its Bylaws whether the
auction work is done by staff, or partially or entirely
subcontracted. We cannot avoid obligations just by
sub-contracting (otherwise everyone would subcontract
everything and avoid all liabilities.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">I
would be inclined to assess the risk as being lower where
administration and grants are concentrated in an entity
other than ICANN. In the case of Mechanism B, risk
reduction would be due to the expert independent contractor
relationship, though admittedly ICANN controls the RFP
process and would be supplying some of the staff as well as
adding the function to its budgeting and audit processes.
In the case of Mechanism C, risk reduction would be due to
the independent Board of Directors and independent staffing,
as it is with PTI. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I ALL mechanisms we will use an indep expert group to do the
application assessment and decide on awards.<br>
<br>
PTI may have a Board, and that may alter legal liabilities,
but ICANN has control over that Board and its budget and I
do not believe the it can be isolated from PTI actions if it
allows them to happen.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">If
valid, these observations may bear on the draft Proposed
Final Report at page 19, including Marika’™s request
for further clarification [MK6] about what is meant by “a
healthy degree of independence†and what the CCWG hopes
to achieve with that goal generally (and not just in
relation to the possible establishment of a foundation.) I
would say the goal of a “healthy degree of
independence†is is controlling risk of expensive
challenges to ICANN and its Board and to the Auction
Proceeds per se. In other words, the greater distance ICANN
maintains from the grant-making process, while still
exercising its fiduciary oversight duties, the lower the
risk to ICANN, its Board, and the funds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
As I understand it ALL mechanisms will have independence of
the grant making process. Period.
<br>
<br>
Challenges will always be possible for potentially all sorts
of reasons. The only challenges we can control are those
from applicants.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">Of
course risk reduction has to be balanced against costs. In
this regard, it would be helpful to have some additional
information. For example, how does headcount cost for 20
people to be hired in ICANN compare to the fees for hiring
an expert pre-existing non-profit? Can a foundation be set
up using ICANN in-house legal staff or must we go to outside
counsel? (Here I am thinking about questions that will be
asked by members of the CSG constituencies.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I will leave these to Sam and Xavier.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">From: Alan
Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
moz-do-not-send="true">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a> >
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent: Tuesday,
November 19, 2019 12:51 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To:
Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>; Erika
Mann <<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">erika@erikamann.com</a>>; Becky
Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"> becky.burr@board.icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Cc: <a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Subject: Re:
[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
Internal Department at ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">[EXTERNAL]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">I
agree that we should make a simple statement that ICANN's
accountability measures cannot be used in relation to
Auction Proceeds grant requests (regardless of who might
file them). This has nothing to do with the approval of
annual budgets. If the EC decides that the tranch allocated
in the budget is not appropriate, it can still take action
under its powers. We are proposing nothing related to the
powers of the EC itself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">I
presume the Board will ultimately approve whatever it
approves contingent on the Fundamental Bylaw change being
approved by the EC. If the EC does not approve it, we are
back to square one (or somewhere, but do not have an Auction
Proceeds plan that is workable).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">If
there are auction proceeds from further rounds, AND the
ICANN Board decides they go into te same post as we have
now, fine. If there are no auction proceeds or if they are
designated for something else. fine.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">Regarding
Bylaws 25.4, note that the lead-in words are "for avoidance
of doubt". The earlier section of 25 explicitly call out the
process which is led by the Board. We have already approved
a fundamental Bylaw change and the process is understood (I
speak as a former member of the EC Administration).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">Alan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">At 19/11/2019
01:31 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Erika, Becky, et
al,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Proposed Final
Report and Consensus<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I believe there
was CCWG consensus regarding the need for a Fundamental
ByLaws change as to the unavailability of Request for
Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Panel (IRP) in
relation to applicants vis-Ã -vis the grant-making
process. Here, the CCWG makes a NEW recommendation on page
23 of the Proposed Final report in relation to remedies
available to applicants for grants. This recommendation
does not cover the possibility of RFR and IRP that might be
filed by someone other than an applicant and I believe that
risk must be controlled as well. (It’s possible
persersons other than appliplicants could file an RFR or an
IRP in relation to ICANN’s handling of the
grantant-making process.) Thee Proposed Final Report should
likely also reflect that this requires a Fundamental ByLaws
change requiring approval by 3/4 of the EC because public
commenters need to know this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">In the limited
tracking I have done prior to becoming the voting rep for
the CSG Chartering organization, I don’t recall any
specific discuscussions in relation to aa ByLaws amendment
relative to the powers of the Empowered Community
established in the revisions to the ByLaws made in 2016 as a
result of the Accountability Workstream 1 work. Did the
CCWG discuss these specific Empowered Community powers in
relation to the Budget relative to use of Auction Proceeds?
Should the CCWG clarify that we are not recommending ByLaws
changes in relation to EC powers? And if we do, does that
make individual grants subject to EC powers (a result the
CCWG does not want.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To be specific,
it does not appear to me from the Proposed Final Report that
there has ever been a CCWG Consensus Recommendation in
relation to (a) availability of RFR and IRP to persons
other than applicants for grants or (b) any effect on the EC
powers memorialized in 2016 in relation to the use of
Auction Proceeds funds.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I sincerely hope
we can clarify that the CCWG is not recommending that the
Empowered Community give up the Accountability processes
contained in the ByLaws in relation to Budgeting of funds
obtained via Auction Proceeds. In my view as an active
member of Subsequent Procedures, this is a long term concern
since the Sub Pro WG is quite likely to confirm that
auctions will remain the mechanism of last resort in string
contention far into the future. While I understand that
“ability toto Sunset†is important in relation to
the prinnciple of not trying to establish a long term
principal endowment, it does seem appropriate to consider
that future new gTLD rounds were always intended and are
likely to proceed at some point. Thus, future auctions are
likely to result in additional auction proceeds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Again, in order
to be crystal clear on page 23 of the Proposed Final Report,
it would also be helpful if Samantha could clarify how
specific ByLaws amendments can be proposed based on the CCWG
recommendations. The ByLaws seem to provide in Article 25
that this cannot be “dirirectly proposed†by the
CCWG iWG itself so I assume that what the CCWG recommends
would need to then lead to a formulation by the Board of a
specific ByLaws amendment. See attached section 25.4. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Accordingly, in
relation to the Proposed Final Report, I believe that the
Recommendation (NEW) on page 23 should be reworked to
clarify the CCWG Recommendations in relation to the needed
ByLaws amendments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Choice of
Mechanism and Survey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Separately, in
regard to the description of risk management I will need to
provide to the CSG, I am trying to clarify whether it would
be advisable (for the Board, ICANN org, the Community, and
the grant recipients themselves) to structure as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(1) Fundamental
ByLaws change to remove RFR and IRP from (a) remedies for
applicants for the funds (b) remedies for anyone else who
may have standing to file against ICANN decisions about
Budgeting re use of funds inside the org and (b) ICANN
decisions about how much to allot to grant-making in
“tranchesâ€.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">&><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(2) Preserve EC
Powers as they stand in the ByLaws in relation to general
Budgeting for both (a) the ICANN org use of the Auction
Proceeds funds and (b) ICANN org budgeting of
“tranches†f7; for grant-makimaking purposes. EC
powers as to the Budget process have a much higher threshold
for challenging ICANN’â„¢s accountability than do RFR
anFR and IRP. A challenge is not easily mounted and a forum
must be convened, etc, etc. But I don’t think nk anyone
would want the EC powpowers to apply to any individual
grant. So it seems we need to choose a structure that keeps
the “Budgdget†aspectpect of an overall line item
for grants wwithin the EC Accountablity provisions but puts
the individual grant-making outside the EC Accountablity
powers. (Perhaps I am wrong that individual grant-making
could be subject to EC general powers if Mechanism A is
utilized and if so, please advise. I just don’t„¢t
think the the CCWG actually has a Consensus on recommending
a ByLaws change in relation to the EC accountability
powers.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(3) To preserve
the EC powers as to Budget, it would seem
“cleaner†to bsp; placelace the actual individual
grant-making processes outside ICANN org and have the CCWG
recommend and the EC acknowledge that specific individual
grants are not subject to the EC Budgeting powers if <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(a) they are
made by a pre-existing non-profit with expertise in
grant-making working under the guidelines provided by the
work of the CCWG and in accordance with the Board’s
overversersight responsibilities and fiduciary duties.
(Mechanism B)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(b) or they are
made by an ICANN Foundation formed with an independent Board
of Directors similar to the manner in which PTI was formed
with ICANN as the sole member of the corporation and thus
well able to conduct oversight and fiduciary
responsibilities. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I appreciate any
observations other CCWG members may have that will help
bring me up to speed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a
name="_GoBack" moz-do-not-send="true">Anne E. Aikman</a>-Scalese<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Of Counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">520.629.4428
office<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">520.879.4725 fax<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a
href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_____________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><img
style="width:1.1875in;height:.4791in" id="_x0000_i1028"
src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20191119143355.008f7ce0@mcgill.ca.2"
alt="[]" moz-do-not-send="true" width="114" height="46"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">One South Church
Avenue, Suite 2000<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Tucson, Arizona
85701-1611<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=w7SyJxrgKKVnHTqfdVCRXVTvzwcYG14zpj0hKYnBbpU&s=rGfqKefdTAS5WX2VVyB-1AH3Ux_KRBxo11rDhT66yjo&e="
moz-do-not-send="true">lrrc.com [lrrc.com]</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><img
style="width:1.25in;height:.4062in" id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20191119143355.008f7ce0@mcgill.ca.3"
alt="[]" moz-do-not-send="true" width="120" height="39"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Because what
matters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">to you, matters
to us.™<<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">From: Erika Mann
<<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">erika@erikamann.com</a>>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent: Tuesday,
November 19, 2019 7:52 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To: Becky Burr
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"> becky.burr@board.icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Cc:
Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Subject: Re:
[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
Internal Department at ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">[EXTERNAL]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Becky -
Thatâ€Ã¢„„¢s what we agre agreed upon but in the light
of Anne’s ¢s points ra raised, we should evaluate
whether our judgement will not be contestable.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Erika <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent from my
iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Nov 19, 2019,
at 3:33 PM, Becky Burr <<a
href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"> becky.burr@board.icann.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I think Sam is
saying that Mechanisms A, B, and C would ALL require a
fundamental bylaws change to eliminate the availability of
IRP and Reconsideration with respect to individual grant
awards. I think we had strong consensus that decisions on
individual grants should not be appealable using
Reconsideration and IRP, and that a bylaws change should be
pursued. Inasmuch as the EC agreed to a fundamental bylaws
change in Montreal, it seems all members have established
the necessary processes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Please correct
me if I am wrong, Sam.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Becky<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Mon, Nov 18,
2019 at 5:20 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a
href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thank you
Samantha. I want to make sure I understand the implications
for Accountability mechanisms and ByLaws amendments when
presenting the options to the CSG. As an initial matter,
could you please clarify one question as to Article 25.4
OTHER AMENDMENTS. “Neither the EC, the Decisional
Participants, , the S Supporting Organizations, the Advisory
Committees nor any other entity or person shall have the
power to directly propose amendments to these Bylawsâ€.
IIn this regard, I gather that the CCWG recommends and then
the Board itself will specifically propose a Fundamental
ByLaws amendment in relation to Auction Proceeds. Is that
your understanding?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">It seems a bit
unlikely that the EC will want to give up its powers in
relation to the Budgeting process as regards the use of
Auction Proceeds for (a) use for grant-making purposes
(regardless of the mechanism chosen) OR (b) internal use by
ICANN Org in its own budget. (Perhaps that is why there is
a bullet point in Board comment relative to the cost of
complying with Accountability mechanisms. However, this
cost is identified in that Board comment that now appears on
page 10 of the Proposed Final Draft as a cost associated
ONLY with Mechanism A. The other mechanisms are listed in
the Board input as requiring the further development of
independent Accountability mechanisms so that is a bit
confusing.) However, overall Budgeting is of course
different from the making of individual grants per se. I
think we definitely need to protect individual grants from
being revoked by the EC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Fundamental
ByLaws Changes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">It appears that
eliminating Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and
Independent Review Panel (IRP) Accountability mechanisms
would be a Fundamental ByLaws change requiring 3/4 approval
from the Empowered Community members (some of whom may not
have implemented EC processes yet?) Can you confirm this?
(Article 25).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Mechanism B<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">In
Mechanism B, ICANN works with an outside contractor already
set up for non-profit grant-making. In that case, it would
seem that although overall Budget allocation and tranches
may still be subject to Empowered Community processes,
individual grants made by the pre-existing expert
non-profit would not necessarily be subject to being revoked
through an EC process. In other words, working with a
qualified expert grant-making organization could reduce
risk, including the risk to recipients of grants. (EC
processes could theoretically be used to affect or influence
the choice of the independent expert non-profit organization
and the amount being allocated in any “trancheâ€.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a>
_______________________________________________
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 (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an
unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</body>
</html>