<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Xavier, <br>
</p>
<p>This follow up comment is not simply because I agree with you,
but because I would like to stress your two points (1)"<i>...</i><i>ICANN
org personnel will not require the expertise to evaluate
projects to which grants are allocated since this will be done
by a separate panel.</i>" and (2)"... <i>not all tasks involved
in this activity will require grant-giving type of expertise
(Finance, project management,…). </i>In the discussions of the
working group there was on occasion some confusion about which
expertise was needed where.</p>
<p>A nice and simple infographic from the World Bank can help here:
see: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/brief/projectcycle">https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/brief/projectcycle</a><br>
<i></i></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">While the infographic is about
negotiated country projects, the process helps identify what
expertise is needed and where. Here, in the case of auction
proceeds, that includes the funding applicants as they identify
and prepare a funding submission. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sam L. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/2019 7:51 PM, Xavier J. Calvez
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9053ED76-40C7-4384-8C0A-33582CCC8AA9@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:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:MingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 9 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MingLiU";
panose-1:2 1 6 9 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* 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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
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.ilfuvd
{mso-style-name:ilfuvd;}
span.e24kjd
{mso-style-name:e24kjd;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1415741205;
mso-list-template-ids:1043339192;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
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">Sam,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fully agree.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ICANN community has expertise in grant
giving activities, acquired outside of ICANN’s activities. So
is the case for ICANN staff. We know there is grant giving
expertise in the existing ICANN staff, though we have not yet
done a thorough and deep inventory of it, nor do we know if
this expertise lies with people who could be reallocated to
the Auction Proceeds distribution activities once it will be
launched.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also to keep in mind, ICANN org personnel
will not require the expertise to evaluate projects to which
grants are allocated since this will be done by a separate
panel. Separately, not all tasks involved in this activity
will require grant-giving type of expertise (Finance, project
management,…). Lastly, as with everything that we do for the
first time, we will learn…, in addition to bringing required
skillset.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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">Sam Lanfranco
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net"><sam@lanfranco.net></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:15 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Xavier Calvez <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org"><xavier.calvez@icann.org></a>,
<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>Cc: </b>Alan Greenberg
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca></a>, "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>Subject: </b>[Ext] 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>Xavier,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Re: "While ICANN org may require to add skillset (insistance
on “may”)..."<o:p></o:p></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="e24kjd">secondment</span> or redeployment from
ICANN staff. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Sam Lanfranco <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 11/20/2019 2:49 PM, Xavier J. Calvez
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 lfo3">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 lfo3">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">Xavier
Calvez</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">SVP
& Chief Financial Officer</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">P: +1
(310) 301-5838 (Direct) | M: +1 (805) 312-0052</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">E: <u><a
href="mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">xavier.calvez@icann.org</span></a></u> | <a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=nER690hZraR54-LBUUodFNZxnzlGeuZ4ncjxjPdXxLA&s=syFOjjivbqCMmKGD2kB5yTYV_djLX8Gci15_PpmI9pg&e="
title="http://www.icann.org/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.icann.org</span>
[icann.org]</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">12025
Waterfront Drive, Ste 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094</span><o:p></o:p></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 href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org></a>
on behalf of Alan Greenberg
<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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
href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><AAikman@lrrc.com></a>,
<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">"erika@erikamann.com"</a> <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><br>
<b>Cc: </b><a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction
Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
moz-do-not-send="true"><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 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><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction
Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<br>
<br>
<b>[EXTERNAL]</b><o:p></o:p></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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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 style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
</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 “Budgdgetâ€
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 style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
</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 style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
</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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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 href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=nER690hZraR54-LBUUodFNZxnzlGeuZ4ncjxjPdXxLA&s=FlR1Nzg6yMi3U63m4me72hlcb0wuRLLYh7fezEnoVtY&e=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=nER690hZraR54-LBUUodFNZxnzlGeuZ4ncjxjPdXxLA&s=oJyjAPeeGOiKa6jV0qRP8HXGYd1t0Y30z3HlBaHuVc0&e=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]</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.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> unjust state" -Confucius<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">邦有道,</span><span style="font-family:MingLiU">贫</span><span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">且</span><span style="font-family:MingLiU">贱</span><span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">焉,耻也。邦无道,富且</span><span style="font-family:MingLiU">贵</span><span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">焉,耻也</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>email: <a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net" moz-do-not-send="true">sam@lanfranco.net</a> Skype: slanfranco<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>blog: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__samlanfranco.blogspot.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=nER690hZraR54-LBUUodFNZxnzlGeuZ4ncjxjPdXxLA&s=Pwf7j2lmHpufRj7YRFnb7uFY0eQRmUooRC8zYlbzYkc&e=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com [samlanfranco.blogspot.com]</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</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>