New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: * Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Dear all! I suggest that the idea of ‘mechanism’ also refers to fostering better practice and exchange with the CCWG’s On 17/07/2019, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July.
The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
Dear All,
Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting.
As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to:
* Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list).
As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC.
Thanks,
Marika
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
-- *---------------------------------------------* *Yao Amevi Amessinou SOSSOU* 01 BP 7304 Cotonou (Benin) ISOC MEMBER ID: 195063 soyames@gmail.com +229 66 12 48 38 (Benin) (+226) 53 03 43 38 / 75 25 59 37 (Burkina-Faso)
I believe we need more clarity on describing the Mechanisms in section 4. Mechanism A: The current wording is "An internal department dedicated to grant solicitation, implementation and evaluation is created within the ICANN organization . All grants are listed in ICANN's annual tax recordings." The term "evaluation" is unclear. We have stated unequivocally that under no conditions would ICANN employees evaluate applications, and that function MUST be done by an external group. Therefore I presume the word "evaluations" here is evaluating whether projects were successful or not. This is a valid comments, but it is something that we have largely been silent on elsewhere in this report, so I am not sure why it is mentioned here. Regardless, it needs to be crystal clear that the application evaluations will not be done "internally" For "All grants are listed in ICANN's annual tax recordings.", I do not believe that the expression "annual tax recordings" has any meaning. Perhaps it was supposed to be "annual tax returns". But I note that what is in or not in ICANN's annual tax returns is a matter for the US Government to decide and not ICANN. Whether a $50,000,000 grant or a $20,000 grant will be listed is not our decision to make. Perhaps we should simply require that all grants must be publicly documented. But should that not be the case REGARDLESS of the mechanism??? Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact meaningless in our case. It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced). Mechanism C: It is not clear here that the level of actual independence from ICANN will rest entirely on how independent the Board is. If it is largely (or anything other than a minority) controlled by ICANN (or the ICANN Board), then it is not independent) and we have not discussed this issue at all. ICANN's control should be on its fiduciary requirement which the Foundation would be subject to under contract, and not on how the operation is managed or what decisions it makes. Alan At 17/07/2019 02:24 PM, Emily Barabas wrote: Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: * Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names annd 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thank you, Alan. These comments will be added to the version of the document that we will review on Wednesday. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 21:07 To: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions I believe we need more clarity on describing the Mechanisms in section 4. Mechanism A: The current wording is "An internal department dedicated to grant solicitation, implementation and evaluation is created within the ICANN organization . All grants are listed in ICANN's annual tax recordings." The term "evaluation" is unclear. We have stated unequivocally that under no conditions would ICANN employees evaluate applications, and that function MUST be done by an external group. Therefore I presume the word "evaluations" here is evaluating whether projects were successful or not. This is a valid comments, but it is something that we have largely been silent on elsewhere in this report, so I am not sure why it is mentioned here. Regardless, it needs to be crystal clear that the application evaluations will not be done "internally" For "All grants are listed in ICANN's annual tax recordings.", I do not believe that the expression "annual tax recordings" has any meaning. Perhaps it was supposed to be "annual tax returns". But I note that what is in or not in ICANN's annual tax returns is a matter for the US Government to decide and not ICANN. Whether a $50,000,000 grant or a $20,000 grant will be listed is not our decision to make. Perhaps we should simply require that all grants must be publicly documented. But should that not be the case REGARDLESS of the mechanism??? Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact meaningless in our case. It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced). Mechanism C: It is not clear here that the level of actual independence from ICANN will rest entirely on how independent the Board is. If it is largely (or anything other than a minority) controlled by ICANN (or the ICANN Board), then it is not independent) and we have not discussed this issue at all. ICANN's control should be on its fiduciary requirement which the Foundation would be subject to under contract, and not on how the operation is managed or what decisions it makes. Alan At 17/07/2019 02:24 PM, Emily Barabas wrote: Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: * Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names annd 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact meaningless in our case.
It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced).
I believe that this is supposed to say that ICANN establishes a captive foundation as a subsidiary. Having done exactly that at ISOC, I can say that for the CCWG's purposes, giving away a one-time pile of money, this mechanism is inferior in every way to mechanism A. It costs more, takes longer, has a lot more bureaucratic overhead, and can do no more or no less than mechanism A. As Alan notes, it has no tax benefits. It is a waste of everyone's time to pursue it further. If anyone has a concrete reason why they believe this would be a good idea, and is reasonably familiar with US non-profit tax law so they understand what's involved, I would like to hear about it. R's, John PS: ISOC's situation is quite different and it makes sense for us. If anyone wants details write me privately.
+1. I feel this hydra keeps coming back.
On Jul 25, 2019, at 1:35 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact meaningless in our case. It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced).
I believe that this is supposed to say that ICANN establishes a captive foundation as a subsidiary.
Having done exactly that at ISOC, I can say that for the CCWG's purposes, giving away a one-time pile of money, this mechanism is inferior in every way to mechanism A. It costs more, takes longer, has a lot more bureaucratic overhead, and can do no more or no less than mechanism A. As Alan notes, it has no tax benefits. It is a waste of everyone's time to pursue it further.
If anyone has a concrete reason why they believe this would be a good idea, and is reasonably familiar with US non-profit tax law so they understand what's involved, I would like to hear about it.
R's, John
PS: ISOC's situation is quite different and it makes sense for us. If anyone wants details write me privately. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Elliot Noss -
Emily Barabas -
John Levine -
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou