Dear colleagues

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. 

Paragraph Okay: 

If ICANN were eligible to apply through the granting process under mechanism A or B or C, particular attention would need to be paid to maintaining division and recognition of responsibilities of staffing, budget, confidential information and operations between the department responsible for proceeds allocation and other parts of the organization that may apply for funds. 

Paragraph not okay:  I don't believe this is what we discussed. I believe we discussed -  if with Mechanism C was fully independent, then ICANN Org applying could receive consideration. It is challenging to understand how ICANN Org could apply with either Mechanism A or B, and yet that is not even referenced.  I propose that this paragraph be stricken, or the same analysis be provided for Mechanism A and B. 

Also, I think we need to refer to ICANN Org, not ICANN, as we have all accepted that ICANN Org is the organization but ICANN includes the community. 

 From the perspective of mechanism C, ICANN would likely not be able to apply for funds granted through a charitable foundation developed to support ICANN's mission, due to self-dealing concerns in the administration and oversight of foundations. To the extent that ICANN is not an applicant for funds through the foundation, but is instead among the intended beneficiaries of an applicant's use of the applied-for grant, each such situation would need to be investigated on the particular set of facts and circumstances to see if self-dealing or indirect self-dealing concerns arise.

---