[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Erika Mann erika at erikamann.com
Mon Sep 4 18:20:10 UTC 2017

Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -

personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to
the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and
will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.

I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will
satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring
sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the
future to utilize maximum flexibilities.

The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph,
will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission
statement within a defined Open Internet concept.

BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly
important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so
much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software
engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation
in/from developing countries.

Thank you for your comments!

Kind regards,

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:

> On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
>> I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a
>> paradox.  The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to
>> support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what
> ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression
> that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally
> today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application
> process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
> That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support
>> the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for
> projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board
> directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
> Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their
> responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ?
> Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly
> have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary
> foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for
> ICANN/its mission).
> Best, Jon
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I
>>> think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few
>>> times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core
>>> values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and
>>> core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that
>>> will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the
>>> lifetime of this CCWG.
>>> -James
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler
>>> Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23
>>> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
>>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>>> Thanks Erika.
>>> To me, the important bit is this one:
>>>  ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the
>>> enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work,
>>> that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the
>>> ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN
>>> community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
>>> I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a
>>> consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too
>>> limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
>>> If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case
>>> in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for
>>> various reasons:
>>>   - they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular
>>> operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these
>>> operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself.
>>>   - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we
>>> are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not
>>> limited to the ICANN mission
>>>   - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting
>>> beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and
>>> role itself.
>>>   - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its
>>> mission) to do a scope extension for these funds
>>>   - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the
>>> administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability,
>>> security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and
>>> the Internet"
>>>    covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read
>>> as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability,
>>> security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the
>>> Internet".
>>> On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
>>>> Dear All -
>>>> herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
>>>> We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG
>>>> AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will
>>>> discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Erika
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker at board.icann.org>
>>>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
>>>> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>>>> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>,
>>>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, Marika Konings
>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org>,
>>>> Avri Doria <avri at apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch"
>>>> <sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>, Board Operations
>>>> <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>, Sally Costerton
>>>> <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner
>>>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org>
>>>> Dear Erika and Ching,
>>>> Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the
>>>> Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
>>>> in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
>>>> On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in
>>>> our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email.
>>>> Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a
>>>> letter including additional acknowledgements and requested
>>>> clarifications.
>>>> Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
>>>> Steve
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170904/89960106/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list