On Jun 15, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:

Hello Marika, all

I won't be in Panama but in case the mechanisms are going to be discussed, let me again reinforce and explain my preference for #1, after reading these draft responses.

I only changed one thing in the document, editorial in nature, but important nevertheless: putting some emphasis (I used a bold font) on the word "and", between ICANN *and* the external charity (for mechanisms #2,3,4, to make it clear that all the requirements that are listed below it will have to be enforced on/in the external organization as well, which to me, amounts to at least 10% of added overhead within ICANN just to double-check that some specific new grant-related ICANN rules are applied correctly outside ICANN (because no matter how far a wrong decision was made, ICANN's status is at risk).

Since the number one paramount criteria is going to be the quality, and therefore the granularity, of the ICANN fiduciary control over these new spending's, the further away from ICANN mgnt, the higher the risk of things going bad.

In addition, other important criteria, such as global participation, global governance, transparency, accountability, etc., are already pilars of ICANN (or aimed-at for the skeptics) and will also have to be "transferred" (or studied/validated) to any outside organization doing the disbursing.

It's going to be very hard IMO to find an external organization/charity that would have the flexibility of adapting to all the new fiduciary requirements listed in these draft responses, and at the same time, which would already have all the higher level properties of being global, open, accountable, transparent, a bit internet savvy, etc.








On 2018-06-14 19:42, Marika Konings wrote:

Dear All,
The leadership team has worked on a first draft response to the
remaining charter questions, reviewing information from the charter
question templates that were developed at an earlier stage of our work
(see https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw) as well as the input
provided by external experts (see
https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B). Some specific issues/questions
for CCWG consideration have been highlighted in yellow, but of course,
input is sought on all aspects of the proposed responses. Please
review this document and provide any comments and/or questions you may
have in the google doc BY SATURDAY 23 JUNE at the latest. This will
allow the leadership team to review your feedback and prepare
accordingly for the CCWG session which will take place on Wednesday 27
June from 15.15 – 16.45 local time (see
https://62.schedule.icann.org/meetings/699541). For remote
participation details, please see
https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ.
To review the draft responses, please see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit?usp=sharing
[1].
Thanks,
Marika
_MARIKA KONINGS_
_Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
_Email: marika.konings@icann.org  _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [2]
and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links:
------
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit?usp=sharing
[2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
[3]
http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds