Action items update
Dear All, Please note the status of the following action items: Action item #1: Staff to review DOI and indicate with * all those that have responded ‘yes’ to question 6 of the DOI. · Note that staff has reviewed all DOIs and for all those for which the response to question 6 was not a clear ‘NO’, names have been marked with a ‘*’ (see https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw). It was pointed out that question 6 could be clarified as follows: ‘Do you individually and/or through any entity intend to apply for funding through the mechanism that is to be determined through the work of this CCWG?’. As a result, the DOI template has been updated (see attached). New action item: All CCWG members and participants to review whether they have been correctly identified as possibly / definitely applying for auction proceeds per the response to question 6. If you believe you have been incorrectly identified and/or need to update your DOI to reflect the clarified question, please contact the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Action item #2: Staff to post table as a google doc. Action item #3: CCWG encouraged to review board letter and add any comments/questions to the template that may be missing. · You can find the Board letter and comments received to date here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JkLb69iVyJ2TOps1NtgEGXkom37xY6S5KmQB2STN.... As you add your comments, please make sure to add your name. Action item #4: CCWG members to review survey results and to indicate whether there is disagreement with the majority positions ahead of the next meeting. · As a reminder, please find a summary of the survey results attached (the document also includes a link to the individual as well as aggregated results) as well as an overview of the charter questions with the gating questions identified to date highlighted in orange. The next CCWG call is scheduled for Thursday 30 March at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 07:27 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items of CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from yesterday’s meeting. For those of you that were not able to attend, you can find the recording of this session here: https://schedule.icann.org/event/9npe/ccwg-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-cross-community-working-group-meeting[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_9npe_ccwg-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dauction-2Dproceeds-2Dcross-2Dcommunity-2Dworking-2Dgroup-2Dmeeting&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=vLoAaTArR0GGlrKvXXyIq1od9jLyIjGDh2_n8UNcCdo&s=7Q5RXGqnOH5XewqK5dPzvCUWa1Arme4y_nS7u9lNWnY&e=>. The next meeting of the CCWG Auction Proceeds WG has been scheduled for Thursday 30 March at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 15 March 2017 Welcome & Introductions · Recap of the agenda · Introductions by WG members / participants (incl. a number of observers). Brief explanation in relation to the make up of the CCWG (members, participants and observers). · Requirement to participate for members and participants to provide a declaration of interest. · CCWG members and participants to ensure that DOI remain up to date and flag if changes are made that warrant updates to the * status as needed. · See intro slides presented during the meeting. Action item #1: Staff to review DOI and indicate with * all those that have responded ‘yes’ to question 6 of the DOI. Recap & continuation of Briefing on ICANN’s legal & fiduciary constraints and ICANN’s mission, including Q&A • Start of the conversation, likely to come back to some of the issues discussed in the presentation throughout the WG’s deliberations • Guidelines/proposed principles: • 1. Consistency with ICANN’s Mission as set out in the Bylaws (covered in further detail in previous meeting) • 2. Private Benefit Concerns (covered in further detail in previous meeting) • 3. Must not be used for political activity: ICANN is barred from any activity that intervenes in a political campaign for a candidate for public office. This includes not providing funds to a separate organization that intervenes in a campaign. Charter includes requirement that proceeds cannot be provided to organizations that intervene in campaigns for candidates (US or outside of US). This is a ‘trail’ down requirement - need to ensure that proceeds down the line are not provided for this purpose. • 4. Should not be used for lobbying activities - ICANN engages in a small amount of activity that is classified as lobbying, which in the US focuses on attempts to influence legislation. If ICANN provides funds to other organization that engages in lobbying activities, such activities would be considered ICANN’s. CCWG could impose requirement that all recipients agree to this commitment as part of the grant process. Where is the line, especially looking across jurisdictions? There may be a number of objective criteria that could be identified - such as registrations as a lobbyist. • 5. Conflict of interest considerations - taking decisions without conflict of interest is paramount. ICANN is prohibited from benefitting insiders to ICANN. Appropriate limitations include prohibitions auction proceeds being awarded to business that are owned in whole or in part by ICANN board members, executives or staff or their family members. Community conflict of interest concerns should also be takin into account. What will be the separation between those making the recommendations and those eligible for award? What segregation of duties or commitments from participants in the CCWG might be appropriate? May not be possible to draw a firm line at this stage of the process, but very important to keep this as an ongoing conversation and be transparent about it. • 6. Procedural Concerns - ICANN will always be responsible for making sure that funds are provided to the appropriate organization both in confirmation of mission and in making sure that funds are provided in a manner consistent with ICANN’s 501(c)(3) status. Number of things that the CCWG can do: make transparent assessment of how the recommendations service ICANN’s mission, considerations of use of established mechanisms for disbursement of funds, as opposed to calling for development of untested mechanisms, recommendations that enhance transparency. • 7. Financial and Fiduciary Concerns: the Board and Officers of ICANN hold fiduciary duties to the organization to make sure that self-dealing does not occur and their private interests are not benefited through ICANN’s decision making and actions. The process through which funds will be disbursed must happen as transparently as possible, without conflict, and based on complete information. ICANN will maintain an ongoing audit function over the distribution process; there is an ongoing governance role. ICANN Board Letter to the CCWG • Letter has been broken up in a structured way to allow for a structured response by the Board • Volunteers to review comments received to date and develop a proposed response for CCWG review • In relation to point four, the work of this group is to set a direction / objective for what the use of the funds are and what the criteria for success are. • Collective drafting of response • Some of the issues in the letter may conflict what is currently in the charter? • Need to confirm timeline for drafting a response. Leadership team to confirm timeline during next meeting. Action item #2: Staff to post table as a google doc. Action item #3: CCWG encouraged to review board letter and add any comments/questions to the template that may be missing. Survey result · See summary results circulated · CCWG members review results and indicate if any info is missing or whether there is disagreement with the majority positions ahead of the next meeting · WG to review reorganized charter questions and start thinking about order of questions Action item #4: CCWG members to review survey results and to indicate whether there is disagreement with the majority positions ahead of the next meeting. Next meeting: · 30 March at 14.00 UTC · Note meeting has been adjusted by one hour to accommodate the different time zones. Likely to be the new meeting time going forward. Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Hello all In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation". I'd like to understand exactly what that means. For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details). Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ? Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ? This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ? There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view. My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
Daniel, All, Reviewing the slides provided by ICANN Legal (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Legal+and+Fiduciary+Constrai nts+Related+Materials?preview=/64073737/64073741/DT%20for%20Auction%20Proc eeds%20-%20CCWG%20Legal%20Presentation.pdf ) on slide 13, it seems that the statement that "lobbying is a forbidden activity for ICANN" is not entirely accurate. The slide recognizes that ICANN engages in some lobbying activities (more about it is disclosed here : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-2 015-11-18-en) and mentions a requirement from our CCWG Charter against providing funds in support of attemps to influence legislation. The relevant section of our Charter is quoted below, from the "scope" section (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter) : "To align with requirements imposed to maintain ICANNs U.S. tax exempt status, the CCWG must include a limitation that funds must not be used to support political activity/intervening in a political campaing public office[2] or attempts to influence legislation[3]. The definitions of the limitations that are imposed to meet U.S. tax requirements must be applied across all applicants, and not only those from or intending to use the funds within the U.S. These requirements will apply to comparable activities across any location where applicants are located or intend to use the funds." So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities. Would that be correct ? Best, Mathieu -----Message d'origine----- De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying Hello all In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation". I'd like to understand exactly what that means. For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details). Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ? Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ? This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ? There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view. My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hello Mathieu, all Thanks for the pointers, especially the ICANN Lobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports. If my understanding is right, they show that some lobbying areas are already OK, and that the set of areas can evolve over time. Looking at the various documents, it's clear that the qualifier "attempt to modify legislation" can be subject to interpretation. Our charter even says "Lobbying does not include public education about issues", which to me, clearly includes public policy makers as a potential audience (it includes everybody when it's online public/free and transparent education and outreach). This would also cover grass-root lobbying, aka indirect lobbying, i.e. when you don't talk to policy makers directly but you hope that your public audience will learn from you and influence the policy work in the end. The important bit is all that IMO is not so much if you talk directly to policy makers or not, but if when doing so, you represent a political party, or a corporate interest, vs. you represent a public interest position, especially one that involves Internet technicalities. Maybe we should look at some recent listing of core Internet values (e.g. done at IGF) to identify which "lobbying" areas are potentially aligned with the ICANN core value of "preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.". On 2017-03-24 11:42, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Daniel, All,
Reviewing the slides provided by ICANN Legal (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Legal+and+Fiduciary+Constrai nts+Related+Materials?preview=/64073737/64073741/DT%20for%20Auction%20Proc eeds%20-%20CCWG%20Legal%20Presentation.pdf ) on slide 13, it seems that the statement that "lobbying is a forbidden activity for ICANN" is not entirely accurate.
The slide recognizes that ICANN engages in some lobbying activities (more about it is disclosed here : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-2 015-11-18-en) and mentions a requirement from our CCWG Charter against providing funds in support of attemps to influence legislation.
The relevant section of our Charter is quoted below, from the "scope" section (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter) :
"To align with requirements imposed to maintain ICANN’s U.S. tax exempt status, the CCWG must include a limitation that funds must not be used to support political activity/intervening in a political campaing public office[2] or attempts to influence legislation[3]. The definitions of the limitations that are imposed to meet U.S. tax requirements must be applied across all applicants, and not only those from or intending to use the funds within the U.S. These requirements will apply to comparable activities across any location where applicants are located or intend to use the funds."
So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities.
Would that be correct ?
Best, Mathieu
-----Message d'origine----- De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying
Hello all
In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation".
I'd like to understand exactly what that means.
For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details).
Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ?
Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?
This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?
There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view.
My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Important to remember that lobbying is a strictly defined and controlled activity and not subject to our interpretation but to that of the IRS and the reason that ICANN is restricted is not out of an arbitrary choice but a strict rule under the IRS of what a 501c3 non profit can and cannot do. =James -----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:29 PM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying Hello Mathieu, all Thanks for the pointers, especially the ICANN Lobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports. If my understanding is right, they show that some lobbying areas are already OK, and that the set of areas can evolve over time. Looking at the various documents, it's clear that the qualifier "attempt to modify legislation" can be subject to interpretation. Our charter even says "Lobbying does not include public education about issues", which to me, clearly includes public policy makers as a potential audience (it includes everybody when it's online public/free and transparent education and outreach). This would also cover grass-root lobbying, aka indirect lobbying, i.e. when you don't talk to policy makers directly but you hope that your public audience will learn from you and influence the policy work in the end. The important bit is all that IMO is not so much if you talk directly to policy makers or not, but if when doing so, you represent a political party, or a corporate interest, vs. you represent a public interest position, especially one that involves Internet technicalities. Maybe we should look at some recent listing of core Internet values (e.g. done at IGF) to identify which "lobbying" areas are potentially aligned with the ICANN core value of "preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.". On 2017-03-24 11:42, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Daniel, All,
Reviewing the slides provided by ICANN Legal (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Legal+and+Fiduciary+Cons trai nts+Related+Materials?preview=/64073737/64073741/DT%20for%20Auction%20 nts+Related+Proc eeds%20-%20CCWG%20Legal%20Presentation.pdf ) on slide 13, it seems that the statement that "lobbying is a forbidden activity for ICANN" is not entirely accurate.
The slide recognizes that ICANN engages in some lobbying activities (more about it is disclosed here : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributio ns-2 015-11-18-en) and mentions a requirement from our CCWG Charter against providing funds in support of attemps to influence legislation.
The relevant section of our Charter is quoted below, from the "scope" section (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter) :
"To align with requirements imposed to maintain ICANN’s U.S. tax exempt status, the CCWG must include a limitation that funds must not be used to support political activity/intervening in a political campaing public office[2] or attempts to influence legislation[3]. The definitions of the limitations that are imposed to meet U.S. tax requirements must be applied across all applicants, and not only those from or intending to use the funds within the U.S. These requirements will apply to comparable activities across any location where applicants are located or intend to use the funds."
So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities.
Would that be correct ?
Best, Mathieu
-----Message d'origine----- De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying
Hello all
In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation".
I'd like to understand exactly what that means.
For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details).
Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ?
Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?
This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?
There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view.
My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for the continuing discussion on this. As Mathieu noted, lobbying in and of itself is not a ³forbidden² activity for ICANN. However, there are significant limits on the percentages of ICANN¹s revenue that can be used on lobbying activity. If ICANN exceeds that percentage, ICANN can lose it¹s 501c3 status. Under the 501c3 rules, it does not matter if ICANN is directly supporting those lobbying activities; any funds that come from ICANN that are used for lobbying activities are calculated as part of ICANN¹s percentage, whether or not ICANN controlled those lobbying activities. The question here isn¹t whether any lobbying activities could be deemed to be within ICANN¹s mission. Nor is the bar on usage of the auction funds for lobbying activities any sort of judgment on the value or need for lobbying activities in this space. It is a recognition that the use of the auction proceed funds to support lobbying activities places ICANN at risk of losing its 501c3 status, even if that lobbying activity is within ICANN¹s mission and aligned with ICANN¹s core values. ‹ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 On 3/27/17, 8:22 AM, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of James Gannon" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Important to remember that lobbying is a strictly defined and controlled activity and not subject to our interpretation but to that of the IRS and the reason that ICANN is restricted is not out of an arbitrary choice but a strict rule under the IRS of what a 501c3 non profit can and cannot do.
=James
-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:29 PM
To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying
Hello Mathieu, all
Thanks for the pointers, especially the ICANN Lobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports. If my understanding is right, they show that some lobbying areas are already OK, and that the set of areas can evolve over time.
Looking at the various documents, it's clear that the qualifier "attempt to modify legislation" can be subject to interpretation.
Our charter even says "Lobbying does not include public education about issues", which to me, clearly includes public policy makers as a potential audience (it includes everybody when it's online public/free and transparent education and outreach). This would also cover grass-root lobbying, aka indirect lobbying, i.e. when you don't talk to policy makers directly but you hope that your public audience will learn from you and influence the policy work in the end.
The important bit is all that IMO is not so much if you talk directly to policy makers or not, but if when doing so, you represent a political party, or a corporate interest, vs. you represent a public interest position, especially one that involves Internet technicalities.
Maybe we should look at some recent listing of core Internet values (e.g. done at IGF) to identify which "lobbying" areas are potentially aligned with the ICANN core value of "preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.".
On 2017-03-24 11:42, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Daniel, All,
Reviewing the slides provided by ICANN Legal
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org _display_CWGONGAP_Legal-2Band-2BFiduciary-2BCons&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imoh zko&m=roPF-tYhNVs20qAd27K78QEVuC0f1JsEoozRbYYLdYA&s=LUJyWFAKGTOkiROjLaCJI rc-nDAyRx8JRC2TE0Xx79w&e=
trai
nts+Related+Materials?preview=/64073737/64073741/DT%20for%20Auction%20
nts+Related+Proc
eeds%20-%20CCWG%20Legal%20Presentation.pdf ) on slide 13, it seems
that the statement that "lobbying is a forbidden activity for ICANN"
is not entirely accurate.
The slide recognizes that ICANN engages in some lobbying activities
(more about it is disclosed here :
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resour ces_pages_lobbying-2Ddisclosures-2Dcontributio&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrw ll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzk o&m=roPF-tYhNVs20qAd27K78QEVuC0f1JsEoozRbYYLdYA&s=lCZfYAFba1Ij1XtzcQpujtT ZMXLpXSeEaHxHJrTnmCc&e=
ns-2
015-11-18-en) and mentions a requirement from our CCWG Charter against
providing funds in support of attemps to influence legislation.
The relevant section of our Charter is quoted below, from the "scope"
section (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org _display_CWGONGAP_CCWG-2BCharter&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS 6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=roPF-tYhNV s20qAd27K78QEVuC0f1JsEoozRbYYLdYA&s=hHDumrVm8pHSbarIiLT8ImHzKiGxza_X-n5hi E220XI&e= ) :
"To align with requirements imposed to maintain ICANN¹s U.S. tax
exempt status, the CCWG must include a limitation that funds must not
be used to support political activity/intervening in a political
campaing public office[2] or attempts to influence legislation[3]. The
definitions of the limitations that are imposed to meet U.S. tax
requirements must be applied across all applicants, and not only those
from or intending to use the funds within the U.S. These requirements
will apply to comparable activities across any location where
applicants are located or intend to use the funds."
So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in
lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not
be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure
that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds
would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities.
Would that be correct ?
Best,
Mathieu
-----Message d'origine-----
De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel
Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À :
ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt
(not) lobbying
Hello all
In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity
for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence
legislation".
I'd like to understand exactly what that means.
For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European
official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change
the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be
allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML).
This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt,
since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder
Platform for details).
Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web
technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without
fragmentation, considered lobbying ?
Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass
a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be
allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just
that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?
This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some
advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal
somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside"
another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some
publisher business.
Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web
architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical
community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?
There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to
the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course
and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens,
these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly
because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's
already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view.
My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of
legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how
things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet
technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities.
SO: Your interpretation seems quite accurate to me. Regards
Would that be correct ?
Best, Mathieu
-----Message d'origine----- De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying
Hello all
In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation".
I'd like to understand exactly what that means.
For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details).
Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ?
Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?
This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?
There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view.
My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
+ Sam + Xavier That's correct Mathieu! Adding Sam and Xavier explicitly for further clarification (both are already included but might not see this exchange), Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Daniel, All,
Reviewing the slides provided by ICANN Legal (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Legal+and+Fiduciary+Constrai nts+Related+Materials?preview=/64073737/64073741/DT%20for%20Auction%20Proc eeds%20-%20CCWG%20Legal%20Presentation.pdf ) on slide 13, it seems that the statement that "lobbying is a forbidden activity for ICANN" is not entirely accurate.
The slide recognizes that ICANN engages in some lobbying activities (more about it is disclosed here : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-2 015-11-18-en) and mentions a requirement from our CCWG Charter against providing funds in support of attemps to influence legislation.
The relevant section of our Charter is quoted below, from the "scope" section (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter) :
"To align with requirements imposed to maintain ICANN’s U.S. tax exempt status, the CCWG must include a limitation that funds must not be used to support political activity/intervening in a political campaing public office[2] or attempts to influence legislation[3]. The definitions of the limitations that are imposed to meet U.S. tax requirements must be applied across all applicants, and not only those from or intending to use the funds within the U.S. These requirements will apply to comparable activities across any location where applicants are located or intend to use the funds."
So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in lobbying or political funding activities.
Would that be correct ?
Best, Mathieu
-----Message d'origine----- De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel Dardailler Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying
Hello all
In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation".
I'd like to understand exactly what that means.
For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML). This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for details).
Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without fragmentation, considered lobbying ?
Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that ? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?
This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site, bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business. Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?
There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their "policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find resources to represent our point-of-view.
My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical community to self-censored itself in these debates.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Erika Mann -
James Gannon -
Marika Konings -
Mathieu Weill -
Samantha Eisner -
Seun Ojedeji