Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear colleagues During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews. I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. Looking forward to our call. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again: What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants. I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law. Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant. "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts? How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight? What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.? Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes. The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management? How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks. I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this. I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear colleagues During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews. I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. Looking forward to our call. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
Thanks, Marilyn. We’ll wait to see if there are any further questions raised during today’s call and then get these all back to Sarah for her feedback. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 11:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again: What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants. I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law. Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant. "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts? How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight? What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.? Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes. The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management? How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks. I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this. I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear colleagues During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews. I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. Looking forward to our call. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
Marilyn - we certainly can pass these questions on to Sarah Berg but it might be more appropriate to pass them on to our legal and finance team. Let's discuss it later, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again:
What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants.
I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN.
I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law.
Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant.
"Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts?
How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight?
What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.?
Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes.
The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management?
How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks.
I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this.
I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions.
Marilyn
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear colleagues
During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews.
I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment.
Looking forward to our call.
Marilyn Cade
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC:
Roll Call Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Fwiw, and because I will struggle to get a longer answer drafted without getting into trouble while on vacation (regrets today), it seems obvious to me that there will be low-cost and low-startup time for options 1 & 2. Those are part of the attraction. They are the simplest models with the straightest line from where we are now to having them operational. The experiences of nominee, cira and SIDN all demonstrate this. We also have advantages over all of those groups as they did not have the built-in army of volunteers that ICANN has. And yes of course all of us volunteers are overworked, but that will be the problem of the least-interesting PDP, not this role! I suggested in Panama that there was a difference in orientation. I think that Marilyn sees "the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants” as much more complicated than I do. I know that Marilyn bases this (honestly held) belief on her experiences. I base my belief on my experiences. Hers are (usefully in many contexts) with large organizations like AT&T. Mine are more in startup environments. I do NOT want to compete for who is right (it is like arguing religion except through the lens of CVs). I do think it useful for us as a group to understand what the two belief systems are. With the best of intentions………. EN
On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Marilyn - we certainly can pass these questions on to Sarah Berg but it might be more appropriate to pass them on to our legal and finance team.
Let's discuss it later, Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again:
What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants.
I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN.
I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law.
Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant.
"Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts?
How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight?
What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.?
Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes.
The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management?
How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks.
I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this.
I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions.
Marilyn
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear colleagues
During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews.
I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment.
Looking forward to our call.
Marilyn Cade
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC:
• Roll Call • Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates • Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates • Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) • Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) • Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) • Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) _______________________________________________ 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
Similar feeling here, my experience as granter (that is, proposing a program, running the calls, evaluation, followup) was in a small organization, W3C, and it was pretty light in terms of internal costs, we were basically doing a couple of meetings per year, with a solid grid of criteria that anyone was able to look at. Our role was mainly going into re-explaining the granting rules, so I suggest the operational group starts asap with this task. On 2018-07-12 15:40, Elliot Noss wrote:
Fwiw, and because I will struggle to get a longer answer drafted without getting into trouble while on vacation (regrets today), it seems obvious to me that there will be low-cost and low-startup time for options 1 & 2. Those are part of the attraction. They are the simplest models with the straightest line from where we are now to having them operational.
The experiences of nominee, cira and SIDN all demonstrate this. We also have advantages over all of those groups as they did not have the built-in army of volunteers that ICANN has. And yes of course all of us volunteers are overworked, but that will be the problem of the least-interesting PDP, not this role!
I suggested in Panama that there was a difference in orientation. I think that Marilyn sees "the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants” as much more complicated than I do. I know that Marilyn bases this (honestly held) belief on her experiences. I base my belief on my experiences. Hers are (usefully in many contexts) with large organizations like AT&T. Mine are more in startup environments. I do NOT want to compete for who is right (it is like arguing religion except through the lens of CVs). I do think it useful for us as a group to understand what the two belief systems are.
With the best of intentions……….
EN
On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Marilyn - we certainly can pass these questions on to Sarah Berg but it might be more appropriate to pass them on to our legal and finance team.
Let's discuss it later, Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again:
What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants.
I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN.
I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law.
Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant.
"Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts?
How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight?
What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.?
Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes.
The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management?
How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks.
I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this.
I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions.
Marilyn
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear colleagues
During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews.
I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment.
Looking forward to our call.
Marilyn Cade
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC:
• Roll Call • Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates • Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates • Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) • Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) • Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) • Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Elliot Noss -
Erika Mann -
Marika Konings -
Marilyn Cade