Clarifications on the Goals and Objections of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds ccWG

[farzaneh badii]

Dear Sam,

Since I was not at the meeting and many NCSG members were not present
either, could you do me a favor and tell me what prompted this email? You
mean our only NCSG representative (Stephanie) in that group (since no one
else volunteered, I believe) was not clear about the scope of the group?
Also to be honest I don't understand how the mandate provides an absolute
clarification. The mandate and scope of this group are somehow vague. It
says it does not include discussion of uses or recipient but at the same
time it says it has to find ways on how to deal with potential or actual
conflict of interest and it has to even consider the scope of fund
allocation.  I am not surprised if the NCSG discussion sidetracked
considering that the charter itself is so vague! Good luck to whoever is
working on this.

Best

Farzaneh

Farzaneh

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> NCSG Colleagues,
>
> As an aid to the rambling discussion about ICANN’s auction funds in
> today’s Johannesburg NCSG meeting it is worth a quick review of the goals &
> objectives of the relevant CCWG, in order to understand the limited scope
> and remit of the auctions CCWG.  The charter is found at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-01-26+
> CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+call?preview=/63156495/64064683/new%20gTLD%
> 20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20-%2022%20January%202017.pdf
>
> The Goals & Objectives state that the CCWG tasked with developing
> proposal(s) for consideration by Chartering Organizations on [the]
> mechanism to be developed in order to allocate new gTLD Auction Proceeds,
> and to consider the scope of fund allocation, necessary conditions to
> preserve ICANN’s tax status and how to deal with potential or actual
> conflicts of interest.
>
> The Charter specifically states that “The CCWG will *not* [underlined in
> the Charter] make recommendations or determinations with regards to
> specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects
> are to be considered eligible for funding, or not).
>
> Earlier discussions at ICANN conferences and within the CCWG meetings have
> reaffirmed that the Charter remit includes the nature of the mechanism (an
> arm’s length foundation, an ICANN based entity, etc.), the nature of the
> governance of that mechanism, compliance with ICANN’s not-for-profit
> status, and dealing with conflict of interest. Earlier discussions also
> made clear that the Charter remit *does not* include a discussion of uses
> (for what?) or recipients (for whom?).  Those issues are to be addressed
> in a subsequent, most likely working group, consultation, probably with its
> own Charter. Lastly, the proposals go "for consideration by the Chartering
> Organizations" and not directly to the Board.
>
> A lot more clarity, and less time off topic, could have taken place in
> today’s meeting if this had been made clear at the start, especially for
> the new NCSG participants.
>
> Sam Lanfranco
> *Canadian Society for International Health*
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <(613)%20476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <(416)%20816-2852>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170627/7e51b34f/attachment.htm>