Thanks Marika, really appreciate the hard work that went into this.

Thanks Erika for including that sentence about the board letter that was received recently, I think it was the best way forward.

As for comments about the board letter, I would like to share these:

As the SO/AC’s are legally registered organizations it will not be possible for them to pass a due diligence review for grant allocation. What normally happens in this type of cases is that a legal entity submits a proposal on behalf of such group, offering “secretariat support” which means they will be ones whose capacity is checked to receive and manage a grant, produce reports, etc. If the mechanism allows for not-legally registered bodies/entities to apply (and be selected for funding allocation) then a lot of work has to be done so that the selected recipient is able to successfully complete the due diligence process. It is not impossible, but the alternative path for that group to be able to demonstrate that they have the capacity to conduct the work, manage the funds and produce reports has to be designed and communicated so that it is not seeing as a barrier for participation. That might include for example, letters of commitment from members of the group to confirm what/how they are supporting the work and what skills they have (for example someone acting as project manager, someone else as treasurer/financial officer, etc), accepting financial statements instead of audit reports (as not every organization gets audited), and other alternative mechanisms. Due diligence is a very important part of the process, but one has to remain focus on what the real objective is: is allocate the grants to the best possible proposals, not to the organizations that can pass the due diligence. Being able to respond to the reality of the community supported is a really important part of being able to support the best projects/ideas. For example, some grants programs allow to include the costs of completing a legal registration for a community group selected, as part of the grant allocation. That leaves a long-term benefit for the community and allows for good ideas to be discussed/selected, even if they don’t fit all the criteria for grant allocation in the first place.

This group and the drafting team before touched on selection mechanisms (committees, panels, etc) in the past, although probably without enough detail. I don’t think the board comment about an independent panel is new, but there are still quite a few details for this group to discuss on that regard (membership, appointment, terms, rotation). I am confused by the way the last part of the letter is worded, about what the board will or will not confirm, and what will happen then. If the board assess the “slate of successful applicants” and considers that the panel did not follow the process, then the whole selection might be thrown away. I don’t think that will be a fair way to do that, as applications were assessed individually, so it might be the case that some rules were not fully followed for one, and 10 projects are listed, and then. the other 9 projects are not selected and there will be a cast of doubt in each and everyone of the other 9 projects and also on the whole committee/panel. What will be the acceptable reasons for the board to “reject” a project already recommended by the committee/panel really needs to be considered, as well as how is that communicated to the community. To be honest I would rather have the board sending a question back to the CCWG about what might be the recommendations from the CCWG about a selection process/committee/panel to allow the discussions to flow, instead of getting framed already.

Regards,

Sylvia

---------

Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation

6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199

* Love trees. Print only if necessary.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 at 8:12 am
To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

Dear All,

Please note that the public comment forum is now live at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018-10-08-en.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>
Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:01 AM
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period.

Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today.

Erika

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct. I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.

Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM
To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying
>>re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of
>>the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.
>
>I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for
>money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO
>asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.
>
>I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be
>inherently conflicted.
>
>R's,
>John

Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws
and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for
the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent
parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.

Alan

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