For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C
Dear CCWG, As discussed on Wednesday’s meeting, please find attached, highlighted in yellow, the additional explanations in relation to mechanism C for inclusion in the proposed Final Report. If you have any comments, concerns or proposed changes to this language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 25 September at the latest. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Dear colleagues While I greatly appreciate the progress to treat all 3 mechanisms until we further prioritize neutrally, I am objecting to the following insertion which once again conveys that Mechanism C in certain situation [e.g. an independent Foundation] is less desirable than Mechanism A or B. Paragraph Okay: If ICANN were eligible to apply through the granting process under mechanism A or B or C, particular attention would need to be paid to maintaining division and recognition of responsibilities of staffing, budget, confidential information and operations between the department responsible for proceeds allocation and other parts of the organization that may apply for funds. Paragraph not okay: I don't believe this is what we discussed. I believe we discussed - if with Mechanism C was fully independent, then ICANN Org applying could receive consideration. It is challenging to understand how ICANN Org could apply with either Mechanism A or B, and yet that is not even referenced. I propose that this paragraph be stricken, or the same analysis be provided for Mechanism A and B. Also, I think we need to refer to ICANN Org, not ICANN, as we have all accepted that ICANN Org is the organization but ICANN includes the community. From the perspective of mechanism C, ICANN would likely not be able to apply for funds granted through a charitable foundation developed to support ICANN's mission, due to self-dealing concerns in the administration and oversight of foundations. To the extent that ICANN is not an applicant for funds through the foundation, but is instead among the intended beneficiaries of an applicant's use of the applied-for grant, each such situation would need to be investigated on the particular set of facts and circumstances to see if self-dealing or indirect self-dealing concerns arise. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 3:52 PM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C Dear CCWG, As discussed on Wednesday’s meeting, please find attached, highlighted in yellow, the additional explanations in relation to mechanism C for inclusion in the proposed Final Report. If you have any comments, concerns or proposed changes to this language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 25 September at the latest. 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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>.
Thank you Marilyn. I believe this particular point was mentioned by Sam but we need to get this checked with her again. I can’t see why an ICANN ORG would not be able to participate in an extraordinary project and would therefore not be able to receive funding from ICANN Foundation. We will add this item to our Action Items list and will get it checked. Second, indeed, we’re talking about ICANN ORG (I thought I added ORG wherever I found it was missing). Wishing you a good week! Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues
While I greatly appreciate the progress to treat all 3 mechanisms until we further prioritize neutrally, I am objecting to the following insertion which once again conveys that Mechanism C in certain situation [e.g. an independent Foundation] is less desirable than Mechanism A or B.
Paragraph Okay: If ICANN were eligible to apply through the granting process under mechanism A or B or C, particular attention would need to be paid to maintaining division and recognition of responsibilities of staffing, budget, confidential information and operations between the department responsible for proceeds allocation and other parts of the organization that may apply for funds.
Paragraph not okay: I don't believe this is what we discussed. I believe we discussed - if with Mechanism C was fully independent, then ICANN Org applying could receive consideration. It is challenging to understand how ICANN Org could apply with either Mechanism A or B, and yet that is not even referenced. I propose that this paragraph be stricken, or the same analysis be provided for Mechanism A and B.
Also, I think we need to refer to ICANN Org, not ICANN, as we have all accepted that ICANN Org is the organization but ICANN includes the community.
From the perspective of mechanism C, ICANN would likely not be able to apply for funds granted through a charitable foundation developed to support ICANN's mission, due to self-dealing concerns in the administration and oversight of foundations. To the extent that ICANN is not an applicant for funds through the foundation, but is instead among the intended beneficiaries of an applicant's use of the applied-for grant, each such situation would need to be investigated on the particular set of facts and circumstances to see if self-dealing or indirect self-dealing concerns arise.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 3:52 PM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C
Dear CCWG,
As discussed on Wednesday’s meeting, please find attached, highlighted in yellow, the additional explanations in relation to mechanism C for inclusion in the proposed Final Report. If you have any comments, concerns or proposed changes to this language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 25 September at the latest.
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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Erika Mann -
Marika Konings -
Marilyn Cade