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

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Tue Sep 5 09:59:30 UTC 2017

I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent, and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield at w3.org] 
Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris at gmail.com>; James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

+1 on all Alan wrote.

I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. 
Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.

On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will 
> endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
> However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects 
> that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do 
> is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money 
> into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in 
> this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just 
> allow ICANN itself to oversee.
> There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
> Alan
> At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
>> 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 [1]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GEJ
> LP7WK5p
>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(75010
> 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(4001
> 25200095);
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 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

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list