Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC
Apologies for catching up on this thread so late. The suggested updates have been made in the attached version. As no other comments/suggestions were received in relation to the questions, please consider this version final. Note that there are still some aspects highlighted in yellow that may require clarification before distribution. Best regards, Marika From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:27 To: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC Totally agree Xavier. I only would add, in the second question, that the question itself should be more directly asking something like… “can you share what are the normal practice in their region/ entity/ country etc. related to the following points: and them que points you have raised reading the question as an outsider, can be less understandable what people can really say as feedback. Asking reference clearly is brings more efficacy. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 15:11 To: Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC All, As a follow up to today’s call, please find below 2 suggested edits: 1- Question #3 relative to audit. See below suggested updated text of the question to clarify the nature of the audit referred to in the question. “What fiduciary and auditing requirements, whether financial or non-financial, would need to be established for this program?” I am also suggesting to remove the secondary question below, within question #3, which is to vague to be addressed. “How will audits need to be managed?” 2- Recommended question on administrative costs The question currently reads as: “Would a fixed percentage, like for example 5%, for administrating and covering the costs of the distribution of the funds be reasonable for project applications? If yes, please provide input on what percentage should apply as well as what the percentage should be applied to (for example, % of total funds available for disbursement, or % per year or in total over the life of the project?)” The part of the question that asks “what percentage should apply” does not make sense. An external expert can not say what should apply to ICANN’s specific and unique program, but can only share common practices they know about, or the practice of the entity they work for. I also want to remind everyone that the administrative costs are not defined by a top/down assumption, 5% for example, but are the RESULT of the procedures that need to be put in place to meet the objectives defined. Again, as an example, if we decide that all grant decisions should be reviewed independently, it will cost 10 times more than if we decide that only a sample of 10% of all grant decisions should be reviewed. No one can “decide” that the costs are 2%, 5% or 15%. What can be decided is what procedures should be put in place, which will then result in a certain level of costs. An external expert can not know what administrative costs the ICANN’s disbursement program “should” result in. The external expert can only provide an external opinion on what other entities see administrative costs to be, for their program. I would therefore suggest rephrasing the question as follows: “What are the main costs to be incurred for grant distribution program? What are the various methods to measure these costs (fixed cost for the entire program, percentage of the total funds allocated for distribution,…)? If a percentage is commonly used in practice, what is the level of percentage most frequently observed?’’ Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 1:06 PM To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC For item 4, please find attached for your review an updated version of the proposed questions document in which staff has aimed to address the comments & suggestions raised by Sam and Xavier. I’ve highlighted in yellow remaining open items but of course, any other input and/or suggestions are welcome. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 21:57 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC. Attached for your review you will find the proposed outreach letter for external experts. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group – Thursday 25 January 2018 14.00 UTC As a reminder, all conference call details will be circulated on the “ntfy” (short for “notify”) mailing list to which members only are subscribed in a read-only mode. These details must not be circulated on the wider public WG mailing list. To avoid burdening the WG public mailing list, please send your apologies ahead of time (apologies after the call will no longer be taken into account) and your dial-out requests to the GNSO Secretariat: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI Updates 3. Review of proposed outreach letter to external experts (see attached) 4. Review of proposed questions for external experts (an updated version will be circulated prior to the meeting) 5. Confirm next meeting Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Also, there are still some organizations for which no point of contact has been identified. Please let me know if you have a contact for those organizations. Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 15:22 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC Apologies for catching up on this thread so late. The suggested updates have been made in the attached version. As no other comments/suggestions were received in relation to the questions, please consider this version final. Note that there are still some aspects highlighted in yellow that may require clarification before distribution. Best regards, Marika From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:27 To: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC Totally agree Xavier. I only would add, in the second question, that the question itself should be more directly asking something like… “can you share what are the normal practice in their region/ entity/ country etc. related to the following points: and them que points you have raised reading the question as an outsider, can be less understandable what people can really say as feedback. Asking reference clearly is brings more efficacy. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 15:11 To: Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC All, As a follow up to today’s call, please find below 2 suggested edits: 1- Question #3 relative to audit. See below suggested updated text of the question to clarify the nature of the audit referred to in the question. “What fiduciary and auditing requirements, whether financial or non-financial, would need to be established for this program?” I am also suggesting to remove the secondary question below, within question #3, which is to vague to be addressed. “How will audits need to be managed?” 2- Recommended question on administrative costs The question currently reads as: “Would a fixed percentage, like for example 5%, for administrating and covering the costs of the distribution of the funds be reasonable for project applications? If yes, please provide input on what percentage should apply as well as what the percentage should be applied to (for example, % of total funds available for disbursement, or % per year or in total over the life of the project?)” The part of the question that asks “what percentage should apply” does not make sense. An external expert can not say what should apply to ICANN’s specific and unique program, but can only share common practices they know about, or the practice of the entity they work for. I also want to remind everyone that the administrative costs are not defined by a top/down assumption, 5% for example, but are the RESULT of the procedures that need to be put in place to meet the objectives defined. Again, as an example, if we decide that all grant decisions should be reviewed independently, it will cost 10 times more than if we decide that only a sample of 10% of all grant decisions should be reviewed. No one can “decide” that the costs are 2%, 5% or 15%. What can be decided is what procedures should be put in place, which will then result in a certain level of costs. An external expert can not know what administrative costs the ICANN’s disbursement program “should” result in. The external expert can only provide an external opinion on what other entities see administrative costs to be, for their program. I would therefore suggest rephrasing the question as follows: “What are the main costs to be incurred for grant distribution program? What are the various methods to measure these costs (fixed cost for the entire program, percentage of the total funds allocated for distribution,…)? If a percentage is commonly used in practice, what is the level of percentage most frequently observed?’’ Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 1:06 PM To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC For item 4, please find attached for your review an updated version of the proposed questions document in which staff has aimed to address the comments & suggestions raised by Sam and Xavier. I’ve highlighted in yellow remaining open items but of course, any other input and/or suggestions are welcome. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 21:57 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 25 January at 14.00 UTC. Attached for your review you will find the proposed outreach letter for external experts. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group – Thursday 25 January 2018 14.00 UTC As a reminder, all conference call details will be circulated on the “ntfy” (short for “notify”) mailing list to which members only are subscribed in a read-only mode. These details must not be circulated on the wider public WG mailing list. To avoid burdening the WG public mailing list, please send your apologies ahead of time (apologies after the call will no longer be taken into account) and your dial-out requests to the GNSO Secretariat: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI Updates 3. Review of proposed outreach letter to external experts (see attached) 4. Review of proposed questions for external experts (an updated version will be circulated prior to the meeting) 5. Confirm next meeting Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
participants (1)
-
Marika Konings