[NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC

Thu Jul 12 14:53:29 EEST 2018

Hi Stephanie,

by when the CCWG is supposed to deliver its initial recommendations?

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 à 20:50, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> I agree.
>
> I have not been active on auction pro lately (rather like watching paint
> dry, and I had conflicts) but we need to get back-up for this CCWG.  Julf
> and I have been active....need more help.
>
> Stephanie
> On 2018-07-12 06:09, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> I think these are good questions.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 12 July 2018 11:53 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I
> had questions by raising issues,  but let me try again:
>
>
> What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low
> cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2?  This makes no sense to me
> -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but
> this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or
> tracking and reporting on grants.
>
>
> I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and
> every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the
> likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN.
>
>
> I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit
> status includes such functions, under California law.
>
>
> Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and
> accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my
> view by the consultant.
>
>
> "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of
> funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN
> has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making
> organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to
> bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from
> other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff
> brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be
> brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts?
>
>
> How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow
> now brought into ICANN's oversight?
>
>
> What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in
> Grant making/grant review/etc.?
>
>
> Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the
> competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core
> responsibilities at risk?  Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of
> grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may
> include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in
> experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes.
>
>
>
>
> The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are
> very committed.  BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the
> Board has, that does not include grant making.  Further, the Board does not
> have expertise in  grant review and grant making - How did the consultant
> determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in
> reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would
> work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional
> time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of
> grants/review/management?
>
>
> How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual
> approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about
> decisions taken within ICANN processes?  This is not a conflict of interest
> issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to
> to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should
> focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my
> view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal
> advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even
> perhaps creates repetitional risks.
>
>
> I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with
> those.
>
> Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need
> to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant
> acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a
> simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would
> fulfill this.
>
>
> I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to
> review for human rights implications.
>
> If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process
> would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having
> volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the
> IRS.  But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions.
>
>
> Marilyn
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM
> *To:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>
>
> Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior
> to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions,
> but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you
> have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01
> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>,
> "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
>
>
> During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of
> the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need
> to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to
> properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained
> consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria
> to grant proposal reviews.
>
>
>
> I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but
> I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to our call.
>
>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>
> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM
> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new
> gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00
> UTC.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Thursday 12
> July at 14.00 UTC*:
>
>
>
>    1. Roll Call
>    2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
>    3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
>    4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version
>    to be shared by staff shortly)
>    5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN
>    Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see
>    attached)
>    6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
>    7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00
>    UTC)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180712/3afd392c/attachment.htm>