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

Tue Jun 27 20:29:50 EEST 2017

Farzaneh,

Thanks for the question. There was an extended segment within the 
discussion of the auction proceeds ccWG section on the agenda, a 
discussion that ranged far and wide beyond the scope and remit that had 
been defined several times in previous meetings. That discussion would 
have been more to the point, had there been more awareness of what had 
transpired previously. I did not post the comment with the intention to 
roast anybody, but to try to underscore the importance of retaining the 
community knowledge about what had been discussed before, and clarify 
the focus at this stage in discussions.

That the Charter language does not provide an absolute clarification is 
not surprising, seldom is there absolute clarification about anything, 
but it, and the discussion over the past several meetings, have divided 
the task into two parts. The first is how should the mechanism be 
structured, both in terms of a good mechanism within ICANN's remit, and 
what issues need to be dealt with in terms of ICANN's not-for-profit 
status. The Charter tossing in "conflict of interest" issues at this 
point may have been premature. That issue is more likely to come up when 
setting the terms of reference for applying for, and awarding, auction 
funds. However, one outcome of the work of this ccWG could be to say 
that "conflict of interest" issues are handed off to the second stage, 
where possibly another ccWG works on eligible uses and eligibility 
criteria for funding applicants.

Also missed, in the discussion, was that the output of this ccWG goes 
back for consideration by Chartering Organizations, and not to the 
Board. If I had to guess about how the process unfolds, I suspect that 
this ccWG will be followed by a second ccWG (dealing with eligible uses 
and eligibility criteria) and, at the end but maybe with more 
intermediate steps, an overall proposal goes to the Board for 
implementation.

That is my read on where we are, and -lastly- it is my own opinion that 
the two step process works best, and putting all the issues in the table 
at the same time is not the best process here.

Sam

On 6/27/2017 1:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <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 <mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>    Skype: slanfranco
>     blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com <https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com>
>     Phone:+1 613-476-0429 <tel:%28613%29%20476-0429>  cell:+1 416-816-2852 <tel:%28416%29%20816-2852>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170627/c4e6927a/attachment.htm>