[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,


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

        That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to
        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>>

            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.


            -----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.


                ---------- 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

                Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

                Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
                Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
                <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

            Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
            Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
            <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
            Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
            Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
            <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

-------------- 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

More information about the Auctionproceeds mailing list