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 1. 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.
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> 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: 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. 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). 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
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 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...)
Thanks Judith NowI am a bit confused. You say the Committee is also working on what categories of projects to fund? So is the Committee also asking for comments on that, or has it already had sufficient feedback. And if it has, what are the outcomes? So what it appears from your statement is that the Committee is considering both where the funds should go, and the structure(s) to manage the distribution. My comment was really to ask when/how the decision on where the money is spent is to be made, the extent to which that might impact on the appropriate mechanism for distribution of funds to agreed targets, and why we are discussing the distribution mechanism before there is agreement on agreed distribution targets. Holly. On 7 May 2018, at 12:53 pm, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Holy,
We are talking about the 4 different mechanism because we need to figure this out. We have been working on this for a long time. We are also working on what categories of projects to fund. We had created a set of examples but have had to revise them based on concerns by the Board but working on that as well. We cannot share these with you yet because they are not agreed. We have also heard from various funds and charities and people who run these to learn about how they manage the funds. I am very much concerned about the funds being used to reduce ICANN's debt, but it seems that the ALAC members on Auction proceeds are split on this. Many want little or no money to go to shore up the reserves, while others prefer to have about 25% go. I too am concerned with the beneficiaries, but we cannot set that now because we cannot specify any group right now, just the types of activities we are interested and they type of capacity building.
The survey went into all sorts of details such as which of these options would be cost effective, more transparent, more accountable, give more opportunities for stakeholder input. Pretty any action that you can think of on these 4 mechanisms.
Option to would be working with a foundation not a charity. It is 4 but with more of hands on by ICANN and the multi-stakeholder community. So the question really Vanda meant to ask is which of these options would be cost effective, more transparent, more accountable, give more opportunities for stakeholder input. Answer could be different for each of these ideas.. Happy to answer any questions. I have already taken the survey so know about all the questions asked.
Cheers, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 5/6/2018 9:51 PM, Holly Raiche 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> 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: 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. 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). 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
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 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 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 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...)
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> 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> 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
1. *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 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 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...)
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 H*ow 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> 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> 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> 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
1. *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 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
Thanks for this explanation. I’m still wary of taking about mechanisms without knowing what it is they are to decide, but I do agree with you: an external organisation will probably cost more without the oversight of an ICANN presence. That’s why an ICANN Foundation makes the most sense- Not completely external, but independent of ICANN Org - as long its membership represents the multi-stakeholderrs involved. Holly On 7 May 2018, at 7:46 pm, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
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> 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> 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> 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: 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. 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). 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
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 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 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 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...)
My Dear Maureen: Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot. In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as unwitting co-conspirators. That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission values is a no-brainer/No hands decision. That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding. That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent. There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established. They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation. The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available for funding projects annually. The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when use is the question during the operational phase. It really isn't rocket science. Best -Carlton. On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
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 H*ow 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> 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> 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> 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
1. *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 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 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 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...)
Dear Carlton, I can understand that on the one hand, the whole exercise seems to be a very very long winded way to proceed forward, thus appearing more like a delaying tactic than anything else. But on the other, this is how ICANN has addressed every challenge it has had to resolve. I deplore that often-times the community appears to want to re-invent the wheel. For instance, is it really the responsibility of the ICANN community to define "What is the Open Internet?" Kindest regards, Olivier On 07/05/2018 14:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My Dear Maureen: Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot.
In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as unwitting co-conspirators.
That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission values is a no-brainer/No hands decision.
That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding.
That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent.
There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established. They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation.
The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available for funding projects annually.
The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when use is the question during the operational phase.
It really isn't rocket science.
Best -Carlton.
On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 H*ow 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. /*
Dear OCL: You know we are one on the larger issue. When can I declare grievous injury? Can you imagine, this business about "what is the Open Internet"? Christ on a bike! CAS ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I can understand that on the one hand, the whole exercise seems to be a very very long winded way to proceed forward, thus appearing more like a delaying tactic than anything else. But on the other, this is how ICANN has addressed every challenge it has had to resolve. I deplore that often-times the community appears to want to re-invent the wheel. For instance, is it really the responsibility of the ICANN community to define "What is the Open Internet?" Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 07/05/2018 14:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My Dear Maureen: Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot.
In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as unwitting co-conspirators.
That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission values is a no-brainer/No hands decision.
That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding.
That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent.
There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established. They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation.
The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available for funding projects annually.
The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when use is the question during the operational phase.
It really isn't rocket science.
Best -Carlton.
On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
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 H*ow 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> 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> 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> 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
1. *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. *
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Mon, 7 May 2018, 13:19 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I can understand that on the one hand, the whole exercise seems to be a very very long winded way to proceed forward, thus appearing more like a delaying tactic than anything else. But on the other, this is how ICANN has addressed every challenge it has had to resolve. I deplore that often-times the community appears to want to re-invent the wheel. For instance, is it really the responsibility of the ICANN community to define "What is the Open Internet?"
SO: Ditto! I did not imagine that the auction proceed will be another ICANN CCWG on accountability-like in terms of duration of completion. What you have said above in terms of attempt to make definitions was what some of us cautioned against and ask that if we must then we should make it simple and not dwell on it too much. It is either ICANN processes is not good enough to maintain consistent participation of "non-paid volunteers" OR that there is an intentional effort by certain parts of the community to complicate things until non-paid volunteers bandwidth Max out and they voluntarily reduce their participation. Regards Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 07/05/2018 14:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My Dear Maureen: Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot.
In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as unwitting co-conspirators.
That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission values is a no-brainer/No hands decision.
That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding.
That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent.
There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established. They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation.
The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available for funding projects annually.
The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when use is the question during the operational phase.
It really isn't rocket science.
Best -Carlton.
On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
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 H*ow 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> 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> 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> 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
1. *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 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...)
My personal view is that external fund (or foundation) could be the best alternative with Community overseen the projects to grant and the results achieved. Rationale: is ready to start. So the projects can start Community involvement will be possible and the only point will be the % those funds/foundations will retain, but a good negotiation since there are several around the world and do not need to be just one, can minimize the problem. Kisses to all 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. From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 09:45 To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey My Dear Maureen: Many thanks for this response. It helped me a lot. In my experience when a simple question becomes captive to the kind of 'deep science' you describe, it is a febrile attempt to derail, as in talk it to death. And regrettably, we might all have been co-opted as unwitting co-conspirators. That the proceeds be used to promote/preserve/maintain ICANN's mission values is a no-brainer/No hands decision. That all this while is spent on how to decide what that is can reasonably described as purely an exercise in lily gilding. That all the time is spent on how to manage the fund is not a policy discussion and in my humble opinion, is happening in a place where those skills - money management chiefly - are not apparent. There are fund managers in this world who are pretty well established. They charge anywhere from 2-3% of value to do that. And that is connected to the results. I double dare anyone to guarantee that cost/benefit in the ICANN organisation. The best a policy-setting group should do is to decide whether this is a fund in perpetuity and if so, what portion of it shall be available for funding projects annually. The best that a multistakeholder group could do in this entire exercise is to accept the role to determine what projects make the cut for promoting/preserving/maintaining ICANN's mission and values when use is the question during the operational phase. It really isn't rocket science. Best -Carlton. On Mon, 7 May 2018, 4:46 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: 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...)
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, 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> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 06:47 To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Cc: 'ALAC List' <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...)
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> 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> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, May 7, 2018 at 06:47 *To: *Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Cc: *'ALAC List' <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 H*ow 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> 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> 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> 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 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM Vanda Scartezini <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
1. *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 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...)
Hi Judith, That's already been done. Introductory letter and survey delivered. On Mon, May 7, 2018, 8:35 AM Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI John,
Please send the name, phone number, and email address for your person and I can add it to the expert database. Each of the experts receives an introductory letter and then a questionnaire.The responses to their questions will help us better understand how they review their proposals.
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+20008&entry...> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 5/7/2018 9:32 AM, John Laprise wrote:
Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants
On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM Vanda Scartezini <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
1. *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 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...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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 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...)
Good man! -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:36 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Judith,
That's already been done. Introductory letter and survey delivered.
On Mon, May 7, 2018, 8:35 AM Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI John,
Please send the name, phone number, and email address for your person and I can add it to the expert database. Each of the experts receives an introductory letter and then a questionnaire.The responses to their questions will help us better understand how they review their proposals.
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+20008&entry...> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 5/7/2018 9:32 AM, John Laprise wrote:
Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants
On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM Vanda Scartezini <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
1. *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 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+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
John, that sounds very similar to one of the organisations that did respond - my preferred option.... :) On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:32 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants
On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM Vanda Scartezini <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
1. *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 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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+(ALAC)
Hi All. Create a foundation and add another baord is not an easy task and the general cost is not small. Moreover, this money is one shot money, then create an internal foundation may be a waste of resources and time. Another point: Where will be placed the overseen of our community? Additionally, we need to be sure this foundation, if one can think about, can grant money outside to US in any region of this planet. It is not a simple solution but all this need to be considered Kisses 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. From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:38 To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>, 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey John, that sounds very similar to one of the organisations that did respond - my preferred option.... :) On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:32 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org<http://www.rsna.org>) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM 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 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...)
In the US at least, the cost is not prohibitive. Moreover, existing models can be copied and amended. The money is a one shot deal at this point but there's no reason why that has to be true. Subsequent newgtld proceeds and even the foundation's own fundraising activities could raise additional funds. Governance has existing models to follow. In the case I am familiar with, the foundation's board of trustees is responsible to the org board of directors. Applying this at ICANN would give the community oversight via the Board. The granting remit is written into the proposed foundation's bylaws. On Mon, May 7, 2018, 11:46 AM Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
Hi All. Create a foundation and add another baord is not an easy task and the general cost is not small. Moreover, this money is one shot money, then create an internal foundation may be a waste of resources and time. Another point: Where will be placed the overseen of our community?
Additionally, we need to be sure this foundation, if one can think about, can grant money outside to US in any region of this planet.
It is not a simple solution but all this need to be considered
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: *Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:38 *To: *John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *Cc: *Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>, 'ALAC List' < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey
John, that sounds very similar to one of the organisations that did respond - my preferred option.... :)
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:32 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
Curiously enough, I happen to work for a 501c3 non-profit that contains a charitable foundation (see www.rsna.org) and asked one of our senior people to respond as an expert. We have a solution that is 3ish. My org has a board but the foundation internal to the org has it's own board which makes funding decisions according to it's mandate. Moreover, it also conducts fundraising for ongoing research grants
On Sun, May 6, 2018, 5:19 PM Vanda Scartezini <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 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 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...)
participants (8)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Holly Raiche -
John Laprise -
Judith Hellerstein -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vanda Scartezini