FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
27 November 2018–revised to account for comments by Seun and others.
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group. The ALAC Members have been following this issue closely and have discussed these issues internally prior to the issuance of this report. The ALAC discussed each of these mechanisms among the participants and members of the working group, and came up with the following:
Recommendation 1: After many discussions among ALAC Members and Participants to the CCWG: Auction Proceeds, the ALAC remains divided about the best mechanism to choose. The poll conducted among the At-Large members and participants highlighted that a plurality of people preferred Mechanism A, or a variant of it, over the other mechanisms, with Mechanism B finishing a strong second.
If Mechanism B is chosen, the ALAC recommends that any external organization working with ICANN will publish a conflict of i nterest p olicy that clearly addresses all the elements of the funding process, follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency, and be in accordance to its obligations with ICANN.
Recommendation 2: The ALAC is supportive of R ecommendation 2 as it is written, as the recommendation itself speaks to the guidelines from the preamble which members and participants spent many hours writing and discussing.
Recommendation 3: The ALAC is supportive of this recommendation as it describes how accountable the process will be. The ALAC is in support of creating an accountable and transparent fund allocation mechanism that would include all the safeguards described in the response to charter question 2.
Recommendation 4: The ALAC agrees with the CCWG Auction Proceeds report in Recommendation 4 that states that robust conflict of interest provisions must be developed and put in place, regardless of which mechanism is ultimately selected. The ALAC is a strong believer in this recommendation, as it is one of the reasons that concern the ALAC with the possible choice of Mechanism A in Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 5: Because these funds were originally set up for philanthropic purposes, the ALAC believes strongly that At-Large Structures (ALSes) and Individual members should be able to apply for funds provided they follow the established process for all applicants. Projects that facilitate capacity building in the regions and that assist the work of At-Large members should be encouraged and supported. ICANN Org, Registries and Registrars, and Advisory Committees/Supporting Organizations (ACs/SOs) should not be able to apply.
The proceeds from past auctions were meant to be used for capacity building activities that enhance ICANN’s mission and core principles and are consistent with an “open and interoperable Internet”. The concept of “open and interoperable Internet” can be described from many angles: technological, business, political, social and cultural, and may have different meanings in different communities. Projects are expected to advance work related to open access, future-oriented developments, innovation and open standards, for the benefit of the Internet community.
The ALAC does not think that additional funds besides those that the ICANN Board has mentioned should be taken out of the Auction Proceeds fund, as this goes against the ideas that led to the creation of the fund and this Cross Community Working Group.
Recommendations 6 & 7: The ALAC is in support of Recommendations 6 & 7 and the correct mechanism and procedures for establishing the size of the tranches, and for how many years. The ALAC is in favor to allocate money according to the time of the project. If there is a collection of projects that will not take a long time to complete, they should go in one tranche while other projects that would take longer can go in a different tranche.
Recommendation 8: The ALAC is a strong supporter and believer that capacity building, especially for underserved populations, that focuses on building up knowledge and engagement about ICANN is at the heart of what these funds were set aside for.
The ALAC is also in support of Recommendations 9 & 10 which follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency which the ALAC feels should be at the core of all discussions.
Recommendation 9: As a standard element of program operations, an internal review of the mechanism should take place at regular intervals to identify areas for improvement and allow for minor adjustments in program management and operations.
Recommendation 10: Focuses on the metrics of evaluating how successful the program has been and these metrics are extremely important for all to ensure that regardless of the mechanism chosen the program has effectively met its identified goals and that the allocation of funds had or is having the intended impact.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
26 November-- New section for Recommendation one–by Maureen Hilyard and Judith Hellerstein
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the initial report on the gTLD Auction Proceeds. ALAC participants have been following this issue closely and have discussed these issues internally prior to the issuance of this report. We discussed each of these mechanisms among the participants and member of this working group and came up with the following
Recommendation 1: After many discussions among ALAC members we remain divided about the best mechanism to choose. An earlier poll identified that At-Large members/participants were divided in their views of a preferred mechanism between Mechanism A and Mechanism B, specifically what might be possible for ICANN under Mechanism B. We understand that Mechanism A might be the easier option in terms of efficiency and convenience, but are concerned that it may not be the best option for end-users hence our discussion and thoughts about improving on this mechanism.
We are concerned about transparency issues and whether, under Mechanism A, distributing the funds from within their normal operations maybe outside of ICANN's mandate and in conflict with ICANN bylaws. Another concern was that ICANN.Org could have more ease of access to the funds to cater for its growing responsibilities relating to, for example, additional money for the reserve fund, or for GDPR and RSS and this could be construed as a conflict of interest.
At the same time, some members/participants of At-Large had doubts about the possible choice of an external organisation that might be prepared and able to carry out all the functions that ICANN could not do as a not-for-profit (Mechanism B), as well as using the funds to establish an ICANN Foundation with the main concerns relating to the cost of setting up and difficulties of closing it at the end of the project (Mechanism C). Many of these concerns diminish if another entity has control over the funds and/or selection of the fund recipients.
If Mechanism B is chosen, ALAC would hope the external organization will publish a conflict of Interest Policy that clearly addresses all the elements of the funding process, follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency, and be in accordance to its obligations with ICANN.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25 November 2018
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the initial report on the gTLD Auction Proceeds. ALAC participants have been following this issue closely and have discussed these issues internally prior to the issuance of this report. We discussed each of these mechanisms among the participants and member of this working group and came up with the following
Recommendation 1: After many discussions among ALAC members we remain divided about the best mechanism to choose, but the consensus is between Mechanism #1 and #2. While M#1 is the easiest from the ICANN perspective in terms of convenience, there is a concern by some that ICANN's administration of these funds could create a conflict of interest when funds which are earmarked for philanthropic purposes are applied for by ICANN constituencies for projects even though they may stand outside of normal operations. There is also a concern that these funds may be used to support ICANN activities where the current budgets exceeded ICANN's expectations, for example, for server replacement or for GDPR legal expenses. There was also a concern that this mechanism might make it easier for ICANN Finance to request additional money from the Fund for covering of Operating Expenses or additional money for the reserve fund.
A hybrid model of Mechanism#2 that retains the ICANN Board for governance and payments by ICANN's Finance Section would also offer cost-efficiencies if a separate but autonomous operation could be established to more objectively and legally attend to global applications as well as make the decisions related to project selections and allocations of funds. Projects could then proceed once the ICANN Board is informed and payments are processed by ICANN Finance.
Recommendation 2: The ALAC is supportive of recommendation 2 as it is written as the recommendation itself speaks to the guidelines from the preamble which members and participants spent many hours writing and discussion.
Recommendation 3: The ALAC is supportive of this recommendation as it describes how accountable the process will be. We are in support of creating an accountable and transparent fund allocation mechanism that would include all the safeguards described in the response to charter question 2.
Recommendation 4: The ALAC agrees with the CCWG Auction Proceeds report in Recommendation #4 that states that robust conflict of interest provisions must be developed and put in place, regardless of which mechanism is ultimately selected. We are strong believers in this recommendation as it is one of the reasons that concern us with the possible choice of Mechanism A in Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 5: Because these funds were originally set up for philanthropic purposes, the ALAC believes strongly that At-Large ALSes and individual At-Large members should be able to apply for funds provided they follow the established process for all applicants. Projects that facilitate capacity building in the regions and that assists the work of At-Large members should be encouraged and supported. ICANN Org, Registries and Registrars, and AC/SO should not be able to apply.
The proceeds from past auctions were meant to be used for capacity building activities that enhance ICANN’s mission and core principles and are consistent with an “open and interoperable Internet”. The concept of “open and interoperable Internet” can be described from many angles: technological, business, political, social and cultural and may have different meanings in different communities. Projects are expected to advance work related to open access, future-oriented developments, innovation and open standards, for the benefit of the Internet community.
ALAC does not think that additional funds besides those that the ICANN Board has mentioned should be taken out of the Auction Proceeds fund as this goes against the ideas that led to the creation of the fund and this Cross Community Working Group.
Recommendations 6 & 7: The ALAC is in support of recommendations 6 & 7 and the correct mechanism and procedures for establishing the size of the Tranches and how many years. We are in favor to allocate money according to the time of the project. So if we have a collection of projects that will not take a long time to complete they should go in one tranche while other projects that would take longer can go in a different tranche.
Recommendation 8: The ALAC is a strong supporter and believer of this recommendation as we believe that capacity building, especially for underserved populations, is at the heart of what these funds were set aside for.
We are also in support of Recommendations 9 & 10 which follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency which we feel need to be at the core of all discussions.
Recommendation #9: As a standard element of program operations, an internal review of the mechanism should take place at regular intervals to identify areas for improvement and allow for minor adjustments in program management and operations.
Recommendation #10: Focuses on the metrics of evaluating how successful the program has been and these metrics are extremely important for all to ensure that regardless of the mechanism chosen the program has effectively met its identified goals and that the allocation of funds had or is having the intended impact.
which follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency which we feel need to be at the core of all discussions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL DRAFT
Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair asked me (Judith Hellerstein) to write and circulate this first draft on 21 November 2018.
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the initial report on the gTLD Auction Proceeds. ALAC participants have been following this issue closely and have discussed these issues internally prior to the issuance of this report. We discussed each of these mechanisms among the participants and member of this working group and came up with the following
Recommendation 1: After many discussions among ALAC members we remain divided about the best mechanism to choose. On Mechanism #1: The members/participants were again divided in their views of a preferred mechanism between Mechanism #1 and what might be possible for ICANN under Mechanism #2. We realize that Mechanism One might be the easiest options in terms of efficiency and ease, but are concerned that it would not be the best option for end-users hence are discussion and thoughts about improving on this mechanism.
On Mechanism 1: The recommendation is that rather than ICANN setting up a separate department as in Mechanism #1, it could set up another separate internal organisation similar to that of PTI, with its own Board and internal operational functions, but with ICANN still maintaining its fiduciary and governance roles and with the ICANN Board retaining some level of control. Having had experience of this mechanism, the establishment of the setup process would also be based on lessons learned by ICANN of this process. This new organisation would be time-framed and could have its own contracted personnel to manage the administration as well as to monitor projects that are assigned - completely outside of ICANN's mandated responsibilities.
We are concerned about whether distributing the funds from within their normal operations was outside of ICANN's mandate and in conflict with ICANN bylaws. Another concern was that ICANN Org could have more ease of access to the funds to cater for its growing responsibilities relating to, for example, GDPR and RSS.
Our concerns on mechanism one relate to transparency issues and the ease of ICANN.ORG interfering in the operation of the funds and the selection of successful applicants to the fund. There was also a concern that this mechanism might make it easier for ICANN Finance to request additional money from the Fund for covering of Operating Expenses or additional money for the reserve fund and that this over reach might be more difficult to accomplish under Mechanism 2 or 3. This concern diminishes if another entity like PTI had control.
Mechanism #2: The ALAC group was divided on this mechanism, but thought that one possible solution if this mechanism was chosen was for ICANN to work alongside another organisation to carry out the work of distributing the funds but also eliminate the difficulty of choosing which external organisation might be prepared and able to carry out all the functions that ICANN could not do as a not-for-profit. This recommendation also met some of the concerns raised by members who rated Mechanism #3 more than others - that a separate Foundation is formed to manage the funds.
However, there was also a consensus for this mechanism becoming a 2nd choice if the suggestion provided for Mechanism #2 was a possibility.
Mechanism #3: The group was divided on using the funds to establish an ICANN Foundation with the main concerns relating to the cost of setting up and difficulties of closing it at the end of the project. The group tended towards making this their 3rd choice although a later discussion offered an acceptable alternative.
Recommendation 2: The ALAC is supportive of recommendation 2 as it is written as the recommendation itself speaks to the guidelines from the preamble which members and participants spent many hours writing and discussion.
Recommendation 3: The ALAC is supportive of this recommendation as it describes how accountable the process will be. We are in support of creating an accountable and transparent fund allocation mechanism that would include all the safeguards described in the response to charter question 2.
Recommendation 4: The ALAC agrees with the CCWG Auction Proceeds report in Recommendation #4 that states that robust conflict of interest provisions must be developed and put in place, regardless of which mechanism is ultimately selected. We are strong believers in this recommendation as it is one of the reasons that concern us with the possible choice of Mechanism A in Recommendation 1.
As regards Recommendation 5, the ALAC believes strongly that if any of the ALSes within At-Large want to apply for funds they should be able to do so provided they follow the established process that all applicants follow. The same is true for any part of ICANN.ORG. The Auction Proceeds funds were meant to be used for capacity building activities that enhance ICANN’s mission and core principles and should be used to support projects that are consistent with an “open and interoperable Internet”. The concept of “open and interoperable Internet” can be described from many angles: technological, business, political, social and cultural and may have different meanings in different communities. The objectives and outcomes of the projects funded under this mechanism should agree with ICANN’s efforts for an Internet that is stable, secure, resilient, scalable, and standards-based. Projects are expected to advance work related to open access, future-oriented developments, innovation and open standards, for the benefit of the Internet community. Projects addressing diversity, participation and inclusion should strive to deepen informed engagement and participation from developing countries, under-represented communities and all stakeholders.
As such, any ALS within At-Large should be able to apply for funding just like any other organization that has a project that would fit within the above-mentioned mission. All applicants, whether they are At-Large ALSes or other affiliated groups or organizations should follow the same process.
ALAC does not think that additional funds besides those that the ICANN Board has mentioned should be taken out of the Auction Proceeds fund as this goes against the ideas that led to the creation of the fund and this Cross Community Working Group.
Recommendations 6 & 7: The ALAC is in support of recommendations 6 & 7 and the correct mechanism and procedures for establishing the size of the Tranches and how many years. We are in favor to allocate money according to the time of the project. So if we have a collection of projects that will not take a long time to complete they should go in one tranche while other projects that would take longer can go in a different tranche.
Recommendation 8: The ALAC is a strong supporter and believer of this recommendation as we believe that capacity building, especially for underserved populations, is at the heart of what these funds were set aside for. The ALAC has always been at the forefront of promoting and enhancing ICANN’s core mission and core principles and is what led up to develop and create the Global Indigenous Fellowship program.
We are also in support of Recommendations 9 & 10 which follow proper procedures on accountability and transparency which we feel need to be at the core of all discussions.
Recommendation #9: As a standard element of program operations, an internal review of the mechanism should take place at regular intervals to identify areas for improvement and allow for minor adjustments in program management and operations.
Recommendation #10: Focuses on the metrics of evaluating how successful the program has been and these metrics are extremely important for all to ensure that regardless of the mechanism chosen the program has effectively met its identified goals and that the allocation of funds had or is having the intended impact.
