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.
36 Comments
Maureen Hilyard
From Vanda:
To whom will be the penholder, here are my comments
Recommendation 1 – I believe we could support option A and B .
Option C will take to much time and will be very expensive and a little non sense, considering that further $$ from auction will be less probable due the hight possibility debating inside NewgTLD syubsequent procedures that the conflict that will demand auction, will be reduce on new rounds.
Recommendation 2- guess we can agree with these 3 focus for the $$.
Recommendation 5 – this is to really think to what position could be interesting. In my view capacitating activities could be also allocated to RALOS under a formal propositions . and the amount of $ allocated to a formal projects inside ICANN org as for instance CROP, with a quite restrict sense of capacity building. To think about
Recommendation 7 – I am in favor to allocate $$ according time of the project. If quite short a 30% when signing the approval and 70% against conclusion and delivery, will work. While long projecta shall be paid against approved intermediaries goals.
One for me relevant aspect to support decision A under recommendation 1 is the possibility already proved that ICANN can deliver $$ to almost any country in the world. Several foundations, for instance in the US, cannot sent money to many countries. Alternative B is acceptable since even the selected foundation could not send money to some countries,the agreement between ICANN and this foundation can make it possible allowing ICANN to make such delivery.
Those are, in my opinion the main points we should pay attention and debate to make our position paper.
Judith Hellerstein
I support Mechanism B instead of A. I feel that B is more accountable and transparent. I am afraid that if we support A, we could lose some transparency as it would give ICANN.org more control. I much prefer the community to identify the amount of money to allocate for each tranche, set the guidelines and then have the applicants chosen but a specific donor fund that is selected. I believe that Mechanism 3&4 will have fewer issues with conflict of interest and consumer safeguards. Since it will be decided by a donor-advised fund it will have less pressure in it by icann.org or constituencies within it
I am supportive of recommendation 2 as it takes it guidelines from the preamble we spent many hours writing.
On recommendation #5. Since I feel the money should be used for capacity building programs I feel that any company or non-profit even one that is one of the ALSes within At Large can apply just like any other company. If they put together the best proposal and it passes the community and the donor-advised fund than that is fine with me. As long as it goes through the same process as any other applicant and is chosen on the merits of its proposal.
I am against any additional money going to ICANN.ORG than what the board announced. I think that recommendation 8 is extremely important and it is those issues that should drive the process of selected grantees.
I am also in support of recommendations 6 & 7. I think we should decide how large/small the tranches should be and over how many years.
I am also in support of recommendations 9 & 10 and would be interested in deciding on the modalities of each.
Sebastien Bachollet
The document written by Judith (thanks) with my comments (Sebastien Bachollet [SBT])
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 our discussion and thoughts about improving on this mechanism.
[SBT] I fully support Mechanism #A. When you see what is happening to Nominet Foundation that was setup as an external entity and is now integrated within Nominet structure and staff, ICANN can go directly in that direction. During ICANN accountability WS1 we have setup processes to enhance accountably and transparency of both ICANN Board and ICANN org (staff). Therefore we need to choose the easier, less expensive way to setup a mechanism to distribute auction proceeds where our voice (among other) will be listen.
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.
[SBT] PTI like as not my support as it cost another budget and administration of a full company and it will need people to have a Board (and I am not sure that it will reflect the various stakeholders).
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 be 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.
[SBT] I am not concern but I support this recommendation.
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. [SBT] ICANN org is the staff? And I am not sure that any part of the staff can be allowed to apply for fund as well as I don’t support that registries and registrars be able to apply. 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.
[SBT] Not sure that we need to underline this example.
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.
Judith Hellerstein
Hi Sebastien,
I do not think that the PTI requires a board but we can find out.
ISOC just started a foundation and they created a totally separate organization with a separate board. Option B is a hybrid of this so it takes the best from Option A and Option C &D. The beauty of it is that it does not require ICANN to have a separate board and so it most cost efficienct, but at the same time it is more accountable and transparent than Option A.
Sebastien Bachollet
https://pti.icann.org/pti-board-of-directors
Maureen Hilyard
I have yet again amended Recommendation 1 following Sebastian's, Alan's and Hadia's comments.
Recommendation 1: After many discussions among ALAC members we remain divided about the best mechanism to choose but the consensus is between Mechanisms A and B. While Mechanism A was seen by the majority of At-Large's participants in a previous poll as offering the most convenient mechanism for ICANN , there remains some concern by some that ICANN's administration of these funds could create a conflict of interest when funds which are earmarked for philanthropic purposes, might want to be used by ICANN constituencies to fund their projects. The At-Large team do not see it as appropriate for ICANN constituencies to be able to apply, however we strongly support that individual members or participants of these entities should be able to apply for funds for more on-the-ground efforts to carry out ICANN's mission. It must be noted that it has already been mentioned that auction funds might also be used to support ICANN's activities where budgets exceeded ICANN's initial expectations, for example, server replacement or GDPR legal expenses.
In case Mechanism B is chosen the external organization should have a written conflict of Interest Policy that clearly addresses all the elements of the funding process that it handles in accordance to its obligations with ICANN.
Recommendation 5 : Because these funds were originally set up for philanthropic purposes, the ALAC believes strongly that At-Large ALSes 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 and promotes At-Large overall, should be encouraged and supported. ICANN Org, Registries and Registrars should not be able to apply.
For Recommendation 8, I too would remove the second sentence. We shouldn't name particular projects.
Sebastien Bachollet
From Maureen: "are applied for by ICANN constituencies"
I don't support that ICANN constituencies (SO, AC, SHG, constituencies and even RALOs) could be able to apply for auction funds.
But I strongly support that members, participants of those entities be allowed to apply.
Then the question of conflict of interest is much simpler.
Judith Hellerstein
OK I modified the statement taking into account Sebastien's and Maureen's comments. I had listed the indigenous fellowship as an example not as a potential project but I see your concern.
Alan Greenberg
Before I comment on substance, I must point out that the “first draft” was modified during the commenting process. This makes it VERY difficult to follow the comments. For instance, through no fault of his own, much of Sebastien’s comments make no sense at all. They refer to parts of the “first draft” that have since disappeared!.
This is counter to the instructions that are clearly written at the top of the section “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).”
Now, on substance, and referring to the draft as it is at 02:13 UTC on 26 Nov 2018.
Rec #1: I believe that when we last held a poll of those from At-Large actively involved with the CCWG, the majority of Members and the majority of Members+Participants both favored option 1. I believe that the comment should say that (while making it clear that we are divided).
Any discussion of hybrid Mechanism B should make it clear how responsibilities would be divided. This proposal leaves it to some future exercise. This alone makes it a dangerous option.
Rec #4: The reply seems to say that we favour strong CoI policies, but those who prefer Mechanism B do so because we do not trust these strong CoI policies. If we do not trust them, then why bother??
Rec #5: I find it hard to consider how we can support that ALSes be eligible but independent constructs from other parts of ICANN should not be. If we do not want contracted parties to be eligible, then say just that (a position I would not support). But trying to include ALSes while wholly discarding any other entity will just not be saleable in my mind. Moreover, it presumes that no other entity somehow related to ICANN can have a good project (of course subject to the strict rules that will apply).
In parts of the draft no longer there, there is reference to PTI. PTI was set up to appease some people on the CWG-Stewardship Transition that ICANN could not be trusted (since we had not yet done the CCWG Accountability work). It has resulted in a huge cost from both a financial and effort perspective. That mistake should not be repeated purely because we now have experience with it.
Sebastien Bachollet
I agree with Alan comments
Judith Hellerstein
Thanks Alan. on Rec#4 we do favor Strong COI policies and this is not in opposition to the support for mechanism 2. It is that those who support mechanism 2 do not believe that the current COI policies do not prevent ICANN ORG from using the Auction Proceeds money.
Rec#5- RALOS have a signed MOU with ICANN and this makes them part of ICANN ORG, while ALSes or individuals within these ALSes do not. This is the distinction.
Hadia Elminiawi
Thank you Judith, Maureen, Sebastian, Vanda, and Alan
Recommendation #1 I totally agree with Alan's comments. We should mention that the poll held showed that the majority were in favor of mechanism A. Or alternatively we could choose to support both mechanisms A and B (like Vanda suggested) while pointing out the pros and cons of each.
Anyway if we stick to mechanism B we should add a few lines that speak about the safeguards that should be considered and the importance of the conflict of interest policy of the external organization, like "In case Mechanism B is chosen the external organization should have a written conflict of Interest Policy that clearly addresses all the elements of the funding process that it handles in accordance to its obligations with ICANN" , we could also put a few lines that speak about the clear roles and responsibilities of each organization (ICANN & the external organization)
I would also suggest to refer to the mechanisms as "A" and "B" instead of "1" and "2" because this is how they are mentioned in the report.
Judith Hellerstein
Thanks Hadia, These are excellent suggestions
Maureen Hilyard
The second paragraph will be reduced to:
In case Mechanism B is chosen the external organization should have a written conflict of Interest Policy that clearly addresses all the elements of the funding process that it handles in accordance to its obligations with ICANN.
The hybrid model will be withdrawn from the At-Large statement and will be presented separately, as it is not part of the main statement
Sebastien Bachollet
I can't support the proposed proposed final draft more particularly recommendation #1.
It didn't take enough into account the comments from Alan, myself and other.
Thanks
Maureen Hilyard
We are working on it, Sebastian. We thought we provided a balanced view., apparently not.
Seun Ojedeji
I am not comfortable with us indicating the phrase "earlier poll" in our response on recommendation 1 as it seem to communicate the impression that there were recent polls that suggest otherwise. I think there was majority support for mechanism A and i believe we should reflect that clearly. I suggest the following wording for the first paragraph:
"After many discussions among ALAC members, the ALAC remain divided about the best mechanism to choose. However the polls conducted identified that a majority of At-Large members/participants preferred Mechanism A."
Regards
Judith Hellerstein
Thanks Seun. I understand your comment. We can just say a poll. It was only one poll so we cannot say polls. Also as I recall it was a majority preferred some variant of mechanism A. People voted for mechanism A with the understanding that the ability to outsource and what could be outsourced would be clarified.
Carlton Samuels
You get rid of all the whyfores and wherefores by simply stating "The plurality opinion of At-Large members who participated is for Mechanism A".
The end.
-Carlton
Judith Hellerstein
Thanks Carlton for your suggestion. I have used your terminology in the statement
Hadia Elminiawi
With regard to the sentence in recommendation number 1 that says "New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner consistent with ICANN's mission, it is unclear what the words "in a manner" mean we propose changing it to say,"New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated to proposals consistent with ICANN's mission"
Evin Erdogdu
Noted Hadia, thank you.
Maureen Hilyard
Thanks Hadia. And you are right sometimes one word can make all the difference.
John Laprise
I'd like to stress recommendation 8. We can't emphasize this strongly enough. Moreover the gTLD operators interest in a global awareness campaign smacks of a marketing campaign. I'm not in favor of that usage. ICANN awareness not a sales pitch for a new gTLD round.
Judith Hellerstein
Thanks John, I also think so but we had no one else commenting on it so kept it short. I strongly agree with this
Maureen Hilyard
+1 Can we add a comment that reflects this please?
Judith Hellerstein
So may be say: 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.
Thoughts John Laprise
John Laprise
Sounds great Judith!
Evin Erdogdu
Thank you Judith and John , the statement has been updated with this sentence.
Sebastien Bachollet
Hello the comments are due for today.
During 10 days no discussion and then the day before we start again.
I would have hope to take this time to have a ratified ALAC comment.
It will not be the case.
I hope that a final version will be sent as ALAC comment (published pending ALAC ratification)
Thanks
Judith Hellerstein
Hi Sebastien, The conversation did not stop. I went on all the CPWG calls, the ALAC call, The ALAC + call, the AFRALO, and the NARALO call all encouraging people to comment on the draft. some did and others did not. I am not sure why you stopped commenting, perhaps you were busy but there has been a discussion on this issue. On the CPWG calls, there was no time for this since the calls were devoted to other issues which were judged to be of more importance. On Monday, despite the comments being closed, we were able to incorporate the comments of John Laprise and Hadia into the statement. There was plenty of time for comments so not sure what the complaints are on.
Sebastien Bachollet
Hello,
I don't know what we are voting for.
You write that you made changes until last Monday and the last version is dated 27 November 2018.
And I am not able to see the last changes.
Judith Hellerstein
HI Sebastien,
Carlton and Seun commented about one sentence and we took their words and used it in the final version. We wrote the new sentence in the comments and then this was agreed. The same is true with John LaPrise's comments. Maureen, ALAC Chair, then advised Evin to add these changes to the final draft which she did and then submitted the comment in ALAC's name pursuant to a final vote by ALAC. I was told that this is the procedure that ALAC follows with all comments. That the ALAC Chair approves the submission and then At-Large staff send it in either after the vote or pending ratification.
It seems that perhaps some one updated the draft with John Laprese's comments but did not add a new date
Judith
Seun Ojedeji
Judith Hellerstein
Seun Ojedeji it was because Pluarlity was suggested by Carlton so trying to take words from everyone.
Maureen Hilyard
While plurality was suggested by Carlton, Mechanism 1 (or a variant of it) was the majority view of the small group of active At-Large participants in the Auction Proceeds discussions. So we really should recognise that.