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

Anthony Harris anthonyrharris at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 21:04:11 UTC 2017


I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked
if this runs off the tracks.

Tony Harris

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I agree to a point Erica.
>
>
>
> And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
>
>
>
> I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the
> potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the
> impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact
> that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from
> being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups
> to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully
> crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
>
>
>
> We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we
> battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest
> battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to
> apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one
> of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community
> immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the
> auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn
> back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we
> gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much
> much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
>
>
>
> If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should
> seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing
> account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is
> ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can
> be disbursed to.
>
>
>
> *From:* Erika Mann [mailto:erika at erikamann.com]
> *Sent:* 04 September 2017 19:20
> *To:* Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
> *Cc:* Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>;
> ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
>
>
>
> 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,
>
> Erika
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/73c3b4a9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list