[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Board message to the CCWG-AP

[Daniel Dardailler]

Hello all

Thanks for this input. I have a question regarding this sentence:

> Sixth, to avoid conflicts of interest, there should be clear
> separation of those deciding general direction, those choosing
> specific projects and those receiving the funds.

The need for separation is obvious between the granters and the 
grantees, but those deciding on the general directions, the strategic 
plan, have no reason to be excluded from either becoming experts in 
project proposal evaluation, or being authors of specific proposals 
themselves.

The strategic plan in the large R&D framework programs of the EC for 
instance, are always done by EU experts in the field (who else can 
analyze the right future strategy ?), in public forum, through 
consensus, and this doesn't prevent them from applying later on, or 
being an expert in specific calls to judge proposals.

The rationales are that the general directions are always consensual and 
general enough to encompass many potential project domains, in each 
directions.

This CWG is tasked to come up with general directions for the funding, 
in a way that does good for the Internet and that is more or less (TBD) 
aligned with the ICANN mission.

Clearly, the people capable of solving this equation are already experts 
in ICANN and Internet goodness, or they wouldn't be here, so it's very 
likely that they are already doing the sort of job the auction funding 
will help.

And if we ask them to leave the CWG for this reason, they'll have to be 
replaced with folks that may have no idea of what is good for the 
Internet and ICANN, since they don't practice.

Can we clarify this point ?