Let's see how the facts play out. I don't think that the ISOC or PIR foundations are role models, as they are indeed "captive" foundations. But as I have followed the ISOC Foundation, that certainly got set up very quickly. And, we can disagree on this, of course, but with mutual respect for different views. Marilyn ________________________________ From: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2019 4:03 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C
While I greatly appreciate the progress to treat all 3 mechanisms until we further prioritize neutrally, I am objecting to the following insertion which once again conveys that Mechanism C in certain situation [e.g. an independent Foundation] is less desirable than Mechanism A or B.
I think you're in the rough here. To me, the obvious disadvantages of mechanism C are so great, more delay, more expense, more bureaucracy, that it's not worth additional attention. I think you'll find that a "fully independent" foundation would give ICANN's lawyers a heart attack, since if it's fully independent, ICANN has no way to ensure that the money is distributed appropriately. If it's a captive foundation, ICANN can always tell it where to send the money because that's how captive foundations work. I am dismayed that we still seem to be arguing about these basic facts of corporate organization. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7C68168db2b03242a1fed508d73ecec4df%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637046930096753722&sdata=UNJzC%2FwViCYKm%2BoCBgq9ILwfdQQeJG2efIVsWsuc748%3D&reserved=0