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

[Arsène Tungali]

Such a good discussion, helping make clear some zones. I am glad we are discussing this ccWG at the NCUC policy meeting happening now at icann59 with Elliot.

-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:29 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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 cell: +1 416-816-2852
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170628/b49aa97b/attachment.htm>