Totally agree - just following suggestion from our group we should share some points and for someone really interested the link gets it all I am in favor to not spend money with already available around . We will probably need more than one fund/ foundation Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On May 8, 2018, at 2:39 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I have been largely offline for the last two days and am just now reviewing this thread. A few comments, not necessarily to any particular posting. - This demonstrated the difficulty in going to a group such as the members of the ALAC list with questions that focus highly on the work the CCWG has been doing for over a year. A short introductory post cannot do justice to all of the discussion that has gone on (admittedly not all of which was productive!). - Of all the options, I favour doing something related to ICANN (there are three variations) and working with another group that we pick carefully so we do not have to invent mechanism and hire staff where we can use resources that are already in existence and working well. Picking that org may not be trivial. Simply farming everything out is perhaps the easiest, but I think the least likely to make good use of our money. - Regarding the "open Internet" issue. I strongly support it staying. We will still need to consider the ICANN mission, but if we restrict things too much, we will end up doing ONLY things that ICANN itself could or should be doing and we will have lost a HUGE opportunity to do really good things with what is likely to be close to 1/4 of a billion dollars. If we end up wasting that, it would be a pity. - The ICANN department and ICANN foundation are functionally equivalent. In both cases other ICANN resources can be shared if necessary (just as PTI shares resources). If we are going to spend the money on setting up and maintaining a separate corporation (ie Foundation), we need to be really sure we understand what we are getting for the cost and complexity. We did it with PTI largely for political purposes (it made some people happy who wanted even more independence from ICANN) but I am not at all sure what benefit we get from that expense. Alan At 07/05/2018 02:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: So true Vanda.. we need the input.of other. I know full well that Option #3 is the most expensive, even though independence is an important criteria But the models that John Laprise and Russell Howarth of Nominet mentioned could mean some sharing of operational tasks may be possible while keeping the Board and selection and allocation criteria separate. On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: Thank you Maureen for the explanation. I guess at this point we had the experts exchanging their knowledge and experience with us, so the model to distributing and control the results to better use the money is relevant. The balance between the efficiency, efficacy and cost must be considered, reason why other minds can think better than ours.. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 06:47 To: Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> Cc: 'ALAC List' < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey Hi Carlton and Holly I guess it does seem convoluted but that may be a perception of the GNSO processes. But for every stage of the Auction Proceeds meetings and in-between meeting discussions, there have been some really interesting and comprehensive debates around topics such as The Charter and the Mission of the group; What is the Open Internet? (and we still are out on that one); Who should Benefit? (was among the first things we discussed, and we were all tasked with making recommendations and then evaluating all the recommendations in order to come up with a core set of criteria on which applications might be based,a key one being that it must focus on CANN's mission); Whether ICANN should use Auction Proceeds for its Reserve Fund (there was a wide range of opinions on that topic); and for ages now we have looked at How the Funds might be Managed. After we had looked at several options and come up with a shortlist of mechanisms, we then asked a number of volunteer experts to give their opinion on our final four. For this survey, we are using their recommendations as our guide to assess which mechanism we each might suggest as the most appropriate one for this group to recommend to the Board. Carlton selected an external organisation taking control of the management of the funds with ICANN having oversight. Like you, I personally would prefer an independent ICANN Foundation with the CCWG recommendations being the over-riding influence in how it is managed. However, I realise that there is a cost factor involved in the Foundation option which limits it a bit, especially as we have not yet decided on a sunset period. But giving it over to an external organisation with its own goals and objectives, and with ICANN supervising, doesn't go down well for me (even though they may be a high-flier international organisation with huge experience in giving away donor money. But how do we ensure that they are interpreting our criteria for beneficiaries and purposes appropriately?). But that's my take on what we are doing anyway. We have a very active and enthusiastic team of members, so I am really looking forward to the results of this survey. Maureen On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks to Vanda for bringing the subject matter to our attention. A big +1 to Holly's. I share every concern and question noted. I should think Option 4 is preferred. Why so convoluted? Reminds me of a story used by a former boss - an ex-army 3-star general - to characterise something like this when presented. He'd say the 2 hump camel was what emerged when an earnest committee got together to plan a better race horse. Carlton On Sun, 6 May 2018, 8:51 pm Holly Raiche, < h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: First - thank you Vanda with sharing this with ALAC. I hope this discussion can migrate somewhere beyond just this email so that everyone can easily find and comment on it. Now, to be devil’s advocate. Why is the group seeking comment on how the funds are managed rather than how they are allocated. It seems to me that the most important question is how the funds will be spent - and heaven knows ALAC has already contributed to this discussion. Some of the suggestions over time have been that the funds should support applications from underserved areas, and/or help fund community (better defined) applications. We also had concerns about some of the funds being used to reduce ICANN debt. But all that was about allocation - not the mechanism of allocation itself. So I am really less concerned with the allocation METHOD, and more concerned with the beneficiaries of the allocation. That said, I will comment on the options. Option One: I am a bit concerned with yet another Department within ICANN. They are - we are told - cutting back on expenditure. Creating a new Department will be heading the other way. Option 2: I particularly do not favour Option 2 because it assumes that the money may be spent on charitable purposes. If the decision is to assist underserved areas, the focus will be very different to ‘charitable purposes; Option 3 & 4: I’d prefer something like a Foundation - so that the funds really are separate, and so would be happier with Options 3 or 4. I would prefer Option 4, but with the condition that if it is to evaluate proposals (good idea) then it must have multistakeholder membership and not simply be a creature of ICANN Org. Hope that helps Holly On 7 May 2018, at 8:19 am, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: Dear Alan, other ALAC friends In the Auction proceeds CCWG we are asked to respond to a survey. Since from the responses from this survey the proposals for the report will be more defined, we were encouraged to get some feedback from the group we are acting with, in this case ALAC, and share our ideas and get your feedbacks if possible There are several questions but in my view some will define others and I would like to hear from you, your thoughts For me the relevant question is related to the model Please take a look at https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter To understand the question. All financial resource shall be granted to projects under the mission of ICANN and only for that. Sorry we have to finalize the survey till Miercoles May 9 , so if you can give feedback during Monday 7and Tuesday8 I really appreciate. Here the options for the most relevant question in my opinion I would like to have some inputs before respond the survey: which will be the best option, think about process, cost, efficiency… The working group has come up with 4 different possible mechanisms that could be considered: 1. A New ICANN Proceeds Allocation Department is created as part of ICANN, the organisation (ICANN Org)- This department would be part of ICANN Org and take full responsibility for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process. 2. New ICANN Proceeds Allocation Department Created as part of ICANN Org which would work in collaboration with an existing charitable organization(s) Responsibilities for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process would be split between the newly created department and the existing charitable organization(s). 3. A new structure would be created (e.g. ICANN foundation) - A new structure would be created separate of ICANN Org which would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process 4. An established entity/entities (e.g. foundation or fund) are used (ICANN would organize the oversight of processes to ensure mission and fiduciary duties are met) - An stablished entity / entities (e.g. foundation or fund) would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process. Thank you Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:zFjhgAXlAWsfYsRosDj90Yo88ZWODi+/FtcBVjIWEby++5iAEQAD2QZtfGDODaImoPaVeXeNJgN0++qRpAAlHjM4OelBwbqldiSj4lqH03YuiBhdFa/gqhVWTU+2xs57 X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )