Thanks to Johan for forwarding the update with regard to new gTLD 
Auction Proceeds

I suggest that NCSG people give a lot of feedback here. Having dealt 
with foundations in the past I am aware of the expertise necessary to 
manage an endowment.

Very early on I suggested that ICANN use a two part strategy where (a) 
it sets the priorities for how funding should be handled, and (b) hands 
off the task to a reputable foundation that has the wisdom and 
administrative skills to manage the endowment as per the ICANN terms of 
reference. I also suggested that "diminishing marginal returns" have 
probably set in with regard to new gTLD's and while the promoters will 
push hard (they get paid up front) the results are not likely to produce 
large additional auction revenues.

The current proposal essentially dismisses the mechanism (D) which is 
what I proposed. Mechanisms A & B are for a fully "in house" ICANN 
mechanism. I fear that: (1)  ICANN has no expertise in this area; (2) 
building it with quality would be much more expensive than partnering in 
with expertise; and (3) the more "in house" the process is the more 
scope there is for ongoing struggles over how funds are distributed.

In my view, that leaves Mechanism C, a collaboration with an established 
endowment manager, the preferred option within the remaining three. Hope 
there is some NCSG discussion here so that the best mechanism is selected.

The decision as to funding priorities will be a subsequent separate (and 
probably heated) discussion.

Sam L.