And my 2 cents here… again, copying as part of the email for easier reference.
Clusters of Principles identified in public comments by sub-team:
• Transparency & Openness; • Accountability; • Lean & Effective; and • Conflict of Interest.
Agree with all these. Need to be defined to have a clear scope.
Issues for further discussion by full drafting team:
• Should diversity be included as a principle and if so how should this be defined?
I have commented about this on my previous contribution. Yes, I think diversity should be a principle and to be defined not only geographically, but also about the communities that ICANN serves (1. Domain names; 2. Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers and 3. Protocol port and parameter numbers). There might be other aspects to consider, like support for stakeholders that probably have other challenges to participate like developing countries, youth, etc. Also, there must be a clear definition of what are operational cost from ICANN, to support its mission, so that the funds allocated through this process are not used to fund activities that were to be funded by ICANN’s own budget.
• Mission statement and values could be included but these could instead by incorporated by reference rather than as core principles?
I think that considering this is under review, is better not to include them but important to reference them.
• Principles for disbursement. Is this a matter the DT or does it confine the CCWG too much?
I think the principles should be defined from the DT as a framework for the WG to work with. But as I have said many times, the WG should NOT focus on specific disbursements. If the WG does that, it will actually turn into some sort of selection committee, which is a very different role. If the WG decides on the mechanism, each mechanism will have different legal requirements that will impact how final disbursements are done. For example: if the WG decides to set up a private foundation, then the foundation will need a board, and they will be deciding on the disbursements, based on the allocations that the WG sets. But if the WG decides to establish one endowment and 2 foundations, then the mechanisms will be different. Just for the sake of argument, if for example the WG allocated funds divided equally per community (30% to support the domain names X, Y and Z issues; 30% to support X, Y and Z for numbering; and 30% for the standards community and 10% for overheads and management). Then if the WG decides –again, just as an example- that one is to be manage by an endowment, one by a foundation, and one by a grant to an existing organization. Then each mechanism will have different ways to add the other layers of diversity get incorporated into the picture, how the financial processes are managed will be different, etc. For example, to make sure that the 30% of funds for the domain names community is distributed having a consideration for development countries, geographical distribution, support to underrepresented groups, etc). The work of the WG will be to define what I just shared as an example, our work will be to set the principles for them to make those decisions, define a framework to work, and the things they need to worry about in terms of preserving the ICANN tax exempt status as well as conflict of interests.
Items for review:
• ICANN 52 Session notes of principles.
Hope someone can share what they found about this… Looking forward to our conference call later this week. Warm regards, Sylvia From: <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 13 May 2016 at 6:56 AM To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds: Sub-team review of general principles Dear DT members On behalf of Erika Mann and Russ Mundy I am pleased to share a very brief note of the general principles which the sub-team have identified as having arisen from the public comments receive on the New gTLD Auction Proceeds. Additionally, the sub-team has identified some items for further discussion by the full DT and one document for further review. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org ————————————————————————— Call for grants open until 31 May 2016 Review T&Cs, apply & share with your network! http://www.isif.asia/grant ————————————————————————— Looking for something interesting to read? Get to know our Development Program at https://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/brochures/files/APNIC-Devel... ————————————————————————— Sylvia Cadena | Community Partnerships Specialist | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> ISIF Asia Information Society Innovation Fund sip: sylvia@voip.apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@voip.apnic.net> skype: sylviacadena https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia Twitter @ISIF_Asia ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia<http://discover.isif.asia/> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 http://www.apnic.net<http://www.apnic.net/> | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | https://blog.apnic.net/ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.