Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Hello, Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives. I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO. That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board. So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Anthony Harris < anthonyrharris@gmail.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and
openness of ...
the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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
+1in agreement with Seun here on that for sure. From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 05 September 2017 12:59 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Hello, Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives. I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO. That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board. So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
+1 also in agreement with the view shared by Seun. Br -- Jacob Odame-Baiden Founder and Executive Director Tintan Africa Web: http://tintanafrica.org Skype: peejake Ph (Mobile): +233 27 755 1996 | +233 50 130 0381 ======================================= AFRINIC Fellow
On 5 Sep 2017, at 12:00 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
+1in agreement with Seun here on that for sure.
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 05 September 2017 12:59 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Hello,
Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives.
I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO.
That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board.
So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support.
-JG
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com <mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>;ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com <mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co <mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com <mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org <mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
In relation to “we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission”, as a reminder, a list of examples has already been compiled as a result of input received during previous surveys. Once the CCWG has reached a preliminary agreement on the proposed objectives, a next step would be to review this list of examples and make a determination of whether these would be considered within scope of the proposed objectives as well as ICANN’s mission. You will find the list of current examples in the attached mind map which has been updated to reflect the latest draft of the proposed objectives. Best regards, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 05:59 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Hello, Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives. I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO. That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board. So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
The board letter came a bit later, after a lot of progress trying to reach a common understanding, so I am trying to refer their comments to the moment our response was send. All the different surveys and discussions done after that, clearly reflect the interest and intent of the CCWG to find effective ways how these funds can be allocated aligned with ICANN’s mission. All of these will provide a framework that applicants can use to assess if they are eligible or not, that selection committees can use to guide their decision-making, and that evaluators can use to assess supported outcomes. We should continue discussing the charter questions, and trying to reach consensus, so that the board gets the full picture of where we are now, not back to square one. ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations has been extended until 15 September (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 5:33 am To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP In relation to “we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission”, as a reminder, a list of examples has already been compiled as a result of input received during previous surveys. Once the CCWG has reached a preliminary agreement on the proposed objectives, a next step would be to review this list of examples and make a determination of whether these would be considered within scope of the proposed objectives as well as ICANN’s mission. You will find the list of current examples in the attached mind map which has been updated to reflect the latest draft of the proposed objectives. Best regards, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 05:59 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Hello, Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives. I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO. That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board. So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I bet this step will be one of the most important, yet hard, steps of this group. I suggest we keep on updating this map with new ideas as they come in. I believe we are on the right path, thanks everyone! What do you think of the suggestion by the Board with regards to updating one's DoI? What best practice can we adopt here to make sure we keep ourselves far from any possible conflict of interest? Can we say by the time we finish the first step of this work (general agreements/considerations), we request everyone to check their DoI and update them accordingly before we move to next step? Just thinking outloud. ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
In relation to “we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission”, as a reminder, a list of examples has already been compiled as a result of input received during previous surveys. Once the CCWG has reached a preliminary agreement on the proposed objectives, a next step would be to review this list of examples and make a determination of whether these would be considered within scope of the proposed objectives as well as ICANN’s mission. You will find the list of current examples in the attached mind map which has been updated to reflect the latest draft of the proposed objectives.
Best regards,
Marika
From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 05:59 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Hello,
Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives.
I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO.
That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board.
So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support.
-JG
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent,
True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer.
and personally Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the mission even if it’s a 'one time' action.
From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet)
-J
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
+1 on all Alan wrote.
I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet development. Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term.
On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that.
However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee.
There is a difference between being prudent and being wise.
Alan
At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.
Tony Harris
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net
wrote:
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.
From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net >; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best, Erika
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org > Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org
, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" < sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations < Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE J 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N LP7WK5p
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 0 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 1 25200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ 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
<Objectives redefined - upd 4 September 2017.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (6)
-
Arsène Tungali -
Jacob Odame -
James Gannon -
Marika Konings -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sylvia Cadena