[Auctionproceeds] Fwd: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Sep 4 22:16:43 EEST 2017
and here is James' latest.....
cheers Stephanie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 19:05:58 +0000
From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
I agree to a point Erica.
And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the
potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the
impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the
fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives
from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by
any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very
carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.
We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we
battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the
greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs
bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across
ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the
ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel
that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that)
and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of
250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable
coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction
funds could have.
If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should
seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing
account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is
ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds
can be disbursed to.
*From:*Erika Mann [mailto:erika at erikamann.com]
*Sent:* 04 September 2017 19:20
*To:* Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
*Cc:* Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; James Gannon
<james at cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -
personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is
to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision
and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.
I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that
will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand
bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in
the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.
The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory
paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the
mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.
BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly
important projects, for example in the security and software area. And,
so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS
software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater
participation in/from developing countries.
Thank you for your comments!
Kind regards,
Erika
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org
<mailto:danield at w3.org>> wrote:
On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:
I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's
position is a
paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to
support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to
what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the
impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its
mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from
the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand
correctly).
That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to
support
the mission with use of the auction proceeds.
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community
(for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back
to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of
their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external
grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means
ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself
(adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of
funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).
Best, Jon
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon
<james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
wrote:
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the
response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed
what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are
restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to
look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core
values must be changed, which being very honest is not
something that will happen in the short or medium term
future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf
Of Daniel Dardailler
Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23
To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com
<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
Thanks Erika.
To me, the important bit is this one:
".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that
the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of
the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the
ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding
the organization to the mission that the ICANN community
developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description
shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated
statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols)
for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start
making a case in front of the ICANN community that the
auction funds are special for various reasons:
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN
regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be
spent only on these operational items (mission listing).
That's a paradox in itself.
- they are supposed to be used for the good of the
Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open
Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission
- they are a one time event and extending the scope of
their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not
endanger the ICANN mission and role itself.
- ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to
ICANN (and its
mission) to do a scope extension for these funds
- ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and
enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational
stability, reliability, security, global interoperability,
resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet"
covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since
it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational
stability, reliability, security, global interoperability,
resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear All -
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week,
during our CCWG
AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that
we will
discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
Best,
Erika
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
<mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>
Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com
<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao
<chiao at brandma.co <mailto:chiao at brandma.co>>,
Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
<mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings
<marika.konings at icann.org
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN
<icann-board at icann.org <mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>,
Avri Doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>, "Sarah
B. Deutsch"
<sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com
<mailto:sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>>, Board Operations
<Board-Ops-Team at icann.org
<mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>>, Sally Costerton
<sally.costerton at icann.org
<mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner
<Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
<mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>, Lauren Allison
<lauren.allison at icann.org <mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org>>
Dear Erika and Ching,
Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on
behalf of the
Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction
Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we
are aligned in
our thinking regarding the points discussed in the
original email.
Specifically, in response to your letter, please find
attached a
letter including additional acknowledgements and requested
clarifications.
Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/auctionproceeds/attachments/20170904/3e48d9dc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
More information about the Auctionproceeds
mailing list