[NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 12 15:36:21 EEST 2018
Let me check the latest and get back to you Fik, I honestly don't know
but was going to get on the call today and update myself.
cheers SP
On 2018-07-12 07:53, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM
>>> *To:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01
>>> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>,
>>> "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org"
>>> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>>> <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM
>>> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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 list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto: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/20180712/45af137c/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list