Reminder - input on remaining charter questions by 9 July 2018
Reminder: CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses to the charter questions and provide input to questions identified by 9 July 2018: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgw.... To facilitate your review, hereby the outstanding items staff identified and shared during the last CCWG meeting: * Charter Question 3 - What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo? * Need to determine whether additional/different safeguards need to be put in place at the project oversight level. See also charter question #9. * Mechanism 1: Who would be responsible for the oversight? And how could a separation from ICANN be arranged to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG related purposes? What safeguards will the department have when policies and procedures to manage it are being designed by ICANN? * Charter Question 5 - What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations? * For Mechanisms 1-3, what is the model for separation of staff? * For Mechanisms 2-3, how can the department benefit from services / expertise inside of ICANN Org and how are those services / expertise then paid for, is this also expected to be funded from auction proceeds? * Do we need a description of goals and objectives the fund should support? Or is the mission driven environment, in combination with bylaws, public interest, etc, sufficient? * if we agree to define goals and objectives, how do we want to do this? * Charter Question 11 - Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations (for example, changes to legal and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s mission)? * What type of review mechanism should be put in place to carry out such a review – is this part of the oversight provided by ICANN Org / Board or is a separate process / mechanism needed? Is the process / mechanism needed different depending on the mechanism chosen? * Comment: ICANN org or Board would need the ability to conduct sufficient level of review in order to meet fiduciary responsibilities. * Charter Question 8 - What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter? * Need to be specific here about what is meant with overhead – overhead for running the mechanism/program, or overhead for the administration of projects, or both? * Charter Question 9 - What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? The issues addressed by a governance framework * How may the implementation of the requirements differ between the different mechanisms? * How might governance committees, steering committees, oversight councils, or advisory boards mentioned by experts play into each model? * For Mechanism 2, what is the allocation of responsibility in this model between ICANN and collaborating organizations? * Comment: Under 2, ICANN handles grantmaking in-house (i.e. money to fund applicant wiring from ICANN-managed bank account) while Under 4, existing charitable org handles fund distribution (with ICANN's supervision; money to fund applicant wiring from external-org bank account). * For Mechanism 3-4, what would this look like in practice when working with an established entity? How closely would ICANN need to be involved in elements of the governance framework listed above. Which elements CAN be delegated? * Charter Question 10 - To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds? * Could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, be an applicant under any circumstances? CCWG may need to confirm with ICANN Org/Board if this may be possible. * Comment: I have the impression that the Board (perhaps Asha or Becky) mentioned that ICANN would never be in the position as a fund applicant. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
On 2018-07-04 16:05, Marika Konings wrote:
Reminder: CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses to the charter questions and provide input to questions identified by 9 July 2018: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgw... [1].
To facilitate your review, hereby the outstanding items staff identified and shared during the last CCWG meeting:
Thanks for the online input option, here are my answers.
* CHARTER QUESTION 3 - What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
The safeguards should be put in place in the operational framework. I would suggest that a first round of expert evaluators (of proposals to be funded) makes its ranking based on several criteria, such as benefits for the open and interoperable internet, the furthering of the ICANN mission, etc., and of course, the "in service of the mission" bit, and that a second round of project approvals, done by a small ICANN board sub-committee, finalize the decision and present the projects to be funded to the board, with their arguments, and mostly the mission constraints in mind.
* Need to determine whether additional/different safeguards need to be put in place at the project oversight level. See also charter question #9. * Mechanism 1: Who would be responsible for the oversight? And how could a separation from ICANN be arranged to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG related purposes? What safeguards will the department have when policies and procedures to manage it are being designed by ICANN?
Since each project accepted will have to go through the board, which is full of watch dogs already (both procedural and community based), I think the oversight by the ICANN board itself is enough to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG benefits.
* CHARTER QUESTION 5 - What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
* For Mechanisms 1-3, what is the model for separation of staff?
Why separate staff ? if all is done by ICANN, and no project funding ever goes to ICANN ORG (except for the question of the reserve), there's no CoI involved.
* For Mechanisms 2-3, how can the department benefit from services / expertise inside of ICANN Org and how are those services / expertise then paid for, is this also expected to be funded from auction proceeds?
We're operating under the assumption that ICANN ORG can and already operates a by-project accounting system (also called analytic accounting), so this issue, if there is one, is not new. How does IANA benefit from ICANN ORG legal or comm for instance ?
* Do we need a description of goals and objectives the fund should support? Or is the mission driven environment, in combination with bylaws, public interest, etc, sufficient?
I don't understand this question, it seems to defeat our years of work on scoping, the open internet, the examples, etc. We have the preamble for description of goals and objectives.
* if we agree to define goals and objectives, how do we want to do this?
If we agree ? Isn't it what half of the CCWG work was about ? (the other half being the mechanism choice).
* CHARTER QUESTION 11 - Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations (for example, changes to legal and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s mission)?
The funding being driven by the mission/by-laws, it's clear that if these change, some review will have to be made. I would suggest a review after a year of operations, and then every other years.
* What type of review mechanism should be put in place to carry out such a review – is this part of the oversight provided by ICANN Org / Board or is a separate process / mechanism needed? Is the process / mechanism needed different depending on the mechanism chosen?
Yes, same domain as oversight, evolution, crisis mgnt, this is done by a board committee and the board.
* Comment: ICANN org or Board would need the ability to conduct sufficient level of review in order to meet fiduciary responsibilities.
Yes, and that's easier when closely integrated within ICANN, mechanism #1.
* CHARTER QUESTION 8 - What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
I already mentioned this point. There is a high level overhead, made of grant mgnt (and decision makers) and for that we need to get an idea of how many projects per year are going to be funded, and how many Project Officers (grant organization personnel) are needed for that. Then we can add 7% overhead for secretariat, comm, system, finance, legal, the base overhead. I would start with an Auction board sub-committee to clear out these questions (since we haven't been able to answer them) and some board agenda items, and then see how this scales up as more projects are funded. In a word, be flexible since it's the first timer ICANN is going to do that.
* Need to be specific here about what is meant with overhead – overhead for running the mechanism/program, or overhead for the administration of projects, or both?
Both. Overhead at the board committee level expenses, grant mgnt (PO and experts), and admin/legal/system/etc.
* CHARTER QUESTION 9 - What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? The issues addressed by a governance framework
Governance based on a clear and transparent process, clear calls scoping, deadlines, agenda, rules for disbursing, and clearly pointing the roles of independent evaluators, of the board (and committee), of the staff PO, etc. There should be some appeal in place, and all the projects should be public (in how much they received, from how many funders, etc).
* How may the implementation of the requirements differ between the different mechanisms?
Same high-level requirements, with more overhead grease if done externally, and more risk that things go bad scope-wise.
* How might governance committees, steering committees, oversight councils, or advisory boards mentioned by experts play into each model?
Up to the ICANN Board Auction committee to design (at this point).
* For Mechanism 2, what is the allocation of responsibility in this model between ICANN and collaborating organizations?
* Comment: Under 2, ICANN handles grantmaking in-house (i.e. money to fund applicant wiring from ICANN-managed bank account) while Under 4, existing charitable org handles fund distribution (with ICANN's supervision; money to fund applicant wiring from external-org bank account).
* For Mechanism 3-4, what would this look like in practice when working with an established entity? How closely would ICANN need to be involved in elements of the governance framework listed above. Which elements CAN be delegated?
* CHARTER QUESTION 10 - To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
To no extent, except for the reserve adjustment, if the community agrees to it.
* Could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, be an applicant under any circumstances? CCWG may need to confirm with ICANN Org/Board if this may be possible.
If this is to cover costs that otherwise would have been born by ICANN ORG, then it's out of scope. Same negative reponse if this is to just re-dispatch the money somewhere else outside ICANN. It's probably the case that the AC and SO will have project ideas that fit well with the auction scope but I think they should inform external parties and maybe guide them, but I can't really see how legally they could apply since they are ICANN.
* Comment: I have the impression that the Board (perhaps Asha or Becky) mentioned that ICANN would never be in the position as a fund applicant.
Except for the reserve question, which I think we should take separately from the auction mechanism, I don't think ICANN should be allowed to get a grant from this fund.
Best regards,
Marika
_MARIKA KONINGS_
_Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
_Email: marika.konings@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgw... [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
It's probably the case that the AC and SO will have project ideas that fit well with the auction scope but I think they should inform external parties and maybe guide them, but I can't really see how legally they could apply since they are ICANN JG: This was born out during the CCWG not to be true. If the SOACs have any legal personage it’s either as the Empowered Community or as their own entireties both as unincorporated associations and not a legal derivative of ICANN org. Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Jul 2018, at 18:36, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
It's probably the case that the AC and SO will have project ideas that fit well with the auction scope but I think they should inform external parties and maybe guide them, but I can't really see how legally they could apply since they are ICANN
HI Erika and Chin, I agree with Daniel on most of his points so not as much to add than was is already there. I also thought that the preamble would satisfy the question of goals and objectives and if not what else do we need. We had to make it broad to satisfy the Board and other people. As for AC/SO needs and whether they could win one of the grants, my thought is that any SO/AC that hears about projects could tell the interested parties to submit them as a proposal and then these projects would go through the normal vetting cycle. The only thing I can think of is a workshop or capacity building activity happening prior to an ICANN meeting that is aligned with one of the type of projects we have suggested? But hear again, it is probably best that this submission like all submissions go through the standard vetting process. So if an AC/SO is supporting this they can submit it to the organization and so has the same likelihood of getting chosen Looking forward to others and to the talk on Thursday Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 7/8/2018 12:36 PM, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
On 2018-07-04 16:05, Marika Konings wrote:
Reminder: CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses to the charter questions and provide input to questions identified by 9 July 2018: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgw...
[1].
To facilitate your review, hereby the outstanding items staff identified and shared during the last CCWG meeting:
Thanks for the online input option, here are my answers.
* CHARTER QUESTION 3 - What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
The safeguards should be put in place in the operational framework. I would suggest that a first round of expert evaluators (of proposals to be funded) makes its ranking based on several criteria, such as benefits for the open and interoperable internet, the furthering of the ICANN mission, etc., and of course, the "in service of the mission" bit, and that a second round of project approvals, done by a small ICANN board sub-committee, finalize the decision and present the projects to be funded to the board, with their arguments, and mostly the mission constraints in mind.
* Need to determine whether additional/different safeguards need to be put in place at the project oversight level. See also charter question #9. * Mechanism 1: Who would be responsible for the oversight? And how could a separation from ICANN be arranged to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG related purposes? What safeguards will the department have when policies and procedures to manage it are being designed by ICANN?
Since each project accepted will have to go through the board, which is full of watch dogs already (both procedural and community based), I think the oversight by the ICANN board itself is enough to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG benefits.
* CHARTER QUESTION 5 - What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
* For Mechanisms 1-3, what is the model for separation of staff?
Why separate staff ? if all is done by ICANN, and no project funding ever goes to ICANN ORG (except for the question of the reserve), there's no CoI involved.
* For Mechanisms 2-3, how can the department benefit from services / expertise inside of ICANN Org and how are those services / expertise then paid for, is this also expected to be funded from auction proceeds?
We're operating under the assumption that ICANN ORG can and already operates a by-project accounting system (also called analytic accounting), so this issue, if there is one, is not new. How does IANA benefit from ICANN ORG legal or comm for instance ?
* Do we need a description of goals and objectives the fund should support? Or is the mission driven environment, in combination with bylaws, public interest, etc, sufficient?
I don't understand this question, it seems to defeat our years of work on scoping, the open internet, the examples, etc. We have the preamble for description of goals and objectives.
* if we agree to define goals and objectives, how do we want to do this?
If we agree ? Isn't it what half of the CCWG work was about ? (the other half being the mechanism choice).
* CHARTER QUESTION 11 - Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations (for example, changes to legal and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s mission)?
The funding being driven by the mission/by-laws, it's clear that if these change, some review will have to be made. I would suggest a review after a year of operations, and then every other years.
* What type of review mechanism should be put in place to carry out such a review – is this part of the oversight provided by ICANN Org / Board or is a separate process / mechanism needed? Is the process / mechanism needed different depending on the mechanism chosen?
Yes, same domain as oversight, evolution, crisis mgnt, this is done by a board committee and the board.
* Comment: ICANN org or Board would need the ability to conduct sufficient level of review in order to meet fiduciary responsibilities.
Yes, and that's easier when closely integrated within ICANN, mechanism #1.
* CHARTER QUESTION 8 - What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
I already mentioned this point. There is a high level overhead, made of grant mgnt (and decision makers) and for that we need to get an idea of how many projects per year are going to be funded, and how many Project Officers (grant organization personnel) are needed for that. Then we can add 7% overhead for secretariat, comm, system, finance, legal, the base overhead.
I would start with an Auction board sub-committee to clear out these questions (since we haven't been able to answer them) and some board agenda items, and then see how this scales up as more projects are funded. In a word, be flexible since it's the first timer ICANN is going to do that.
* Need to be specific here about what is meant with overhead – overhead for running the mechanism/program, or overhead for the administration of projects, or both?
Both. Overhead at the board committee level expenses, grant mgnt (PO and experts), and admin/legal/system/etc.
* CHARTER QUESTION 9 - What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? The issues addressed by a governance framework
Governance based on a clear and transparent process, clear calls scoping, deadlines, agenda, rules for disbursing, and clearly pointing the roles of independent evaluators, of the board (and committee), of the staff PO, etc. There should be some appeal in place, and all the projects should be public (in how much they received, from how many funders, etc).
* How may the implementation of the requirements differ between the different mechanisms?
Same high-level requirements, with more overhead grease if done externally, and more risk that things go bad scope-wise.
* How might governance committees, steering committees, oversight councils, or advisory boards mentioned by experts play into each model?
Up to the ICANN Board Auction committee to design (at this point).
* For Mechanism 2, what is the allocation of responsibility in this model between ICANN and collaborating organizations?
* Comment: Under 2, ICANN handles grantmaking in-house (i.e. money to fund applicant wiring from ICANN-managed bank account) while Under 4, existing charitable org handles fund distribution (with ICANN's supervision; money to fund applicant wiring from external-org bank account).
* For Mechanism 3-4, what would this look like in practice when working with an established entity? How closely would ICANN need to be involved in elements of the governance framework listed above. Which elements CAN be delegated?
* CHARTER QUESTION 10 - To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
To no extent, except for the reserve adjustment, if the community agrees to it.
* Could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, be an applicant under any circumstances? CCWG may need to confirm with ICANN Org/Board if this may be possible.
If this is to cover costs that otherwise would have been born by ICANN ORG, then it's out of scope. Same negative reponse if this is to just re-dispatch the money somewhere else outside ICANN. It's probably the case that the AC and SO will have project ideas that fit well with the auction scope but I think they should inform external parties and maybe guide them, but I can't really see how legally they could apply since they are ICANN.
* Comment: I have the impression that the Board (perhaps Asha or Becky) mentioned that ICANN would never be in the position as a fund applicant.
Except for the reserve question, which I think we should take separately from the auction mechanism, I don't think ICANN should be allowed to get a grant from this fund.
Best regards,
Marika
_MARIKA KONINGS_
_Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
_Email: marika.konings@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgw...
[2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (4)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
James Gannon -
Judith Hellerstein -
Marika Konings