Hi Arsene,
Thanks for your comments.
No, there would be nothing to preclude community members from applying for a grant through the fund (in whatever form it may ultimately take), though I would just like to clarify that was not what I meant by my question. I was asking if we thought it appropriate for ICANN stakeholder groups/constituencies/advisory committees (i.e. the NCSG) to be eligible to apply for support. I could see there being value in this, as a way of leveling the playing field and ensuring our continued independence from ICANN. Relying on ICANN org to fund our activities and enggagement is, I think, dangerous, as they could potentially shrink our budget to undermine or weaken us. And given the organisation is under financial pressure at the moment, and ICANN org always seeks to protect and enrich its own staff over the community (just look at last year's budget), I would suggest we need to be thinking about how we can ensure the long-term sustainability of civil society participation at ICANN in the absence of funding from ICANN org.
Mechanism C would entail the establishment of a Foundation with total operational independence from ICANN org and its own board of directors. I could see this being more accountable than Mechanisms A and B.
Ultimately, we're talking about giving away at least USD $220,000,000.00 here, if not more, should there be another round of gTLDs. The cost of establishing an independent foundation is minimal as a proportion of total gift giving that is on offer.
Best wishes,
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, 26 November 2018 17:11, Arsène Tungali <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I read the comment and i think it is great one. My apologies for
> missing the PC call today.
>
> Regarding Ayden's questions:
>
> - I think Julf said it too. I agree with him that we should leave
> these funds outside of the ICANN constituencies or SG since these can
> be funded through ICANN's budget. But i don't think this implies that
> ICANN individual community members leading charitable organizations
> cannot apply for funding from the auction. Does it?
>
> - Though I agree with the reason Ayden mentioned, but i think option B
> is what I would go for since this will, i suppose, cost less money and
> time (admin fees, setting up a foundation, etc) than it would if we
> have to set up a completely separate mechanism.
>
> Option B also has the potential to help these funds be well managed
> based on the experience/expertise of the mechanism (existing org) in
> these matters rather than relying on the brand new mechanism with no
> record. I haven't read the WG report so i am not sure what are the
> rationales they gave when suggesting Option A and B.
>
> Thanks,
> Arsene
>
> 2018-11-26 17:10 UTC+02:00, Mili [log in to unmask]:
>
>
> > Apologies for missing the call but thanks for the update and my views below.
> >
> > 1. If the funds are used for various constituency activities then its also
> > essential that the usage % for each is defined, and maybe where and for what
> > they can be used.
> >
> > 2. Support the idea of C.
> >
> > 3. Since I support C above, the establishment of the foundation itself in my
> > opinion should act as a body that works to keep up ICANNs mission.
> >
> >
> > —
> > With gratitude
> > Mili Semlani
> > On 26-Nov-2018, at 7:35 PM, Rafik Dammak [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > thanks Ayden. As we discussed a few minutes ago at the NCSG Policy call, we
> > need input here to finalize the comment for submission.
> > Best,
> > Rafik
> >
> > > Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 18:49, Ayden Férdeline [log in to unmask] a
> > > écrit :
> > > Austin, this is an excellent comment -- thank you so much for drafting
> > > it.
> > > I have made a number of edits today that I hope are seen as friendly.
> > > And there are three questions that I have for the NCSG, as I would like to
> > > understand what our position is on these points.
> > > The first is, should a part of the ICANN community be eligible to receive
> > > funding? I imagine that the GAC will seek funding for its independent
> > > secretariat - is there a possibility that we would do the same, to ensure
> > > the longevity of our activities?
> > > Second, what is the fund dispersal mechanism that we prefer? (The options
> > > are A - internal ICANN department, B - ICANN partners with an existing,
> > > external charitable organization, C - new and independent ICANN Foundation
> > > is established, D - external entity receives and administers the funds.) C
> > > strikes me as the best option here given it removes ICANN org's tentacles
> > > from the funds, but I understand the CCWG-AP is recommending options A or
> > > B.
> > > Third, the recommendations state that preservation of capital should not
> > > be an objective (and in and of itself I agree with that statement), but
> > > would there not be a benefit to having an organization set up in
> > > perpetuity to advance activities in support of ICANN's mission?
> > > I look forward to hearing the views of NCSG members on these questions.
> > > Thank you.
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Ayden Férdeline
> > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 01:30, Rafik Dammak [log in to unmask]
> > > > wrote:
> > > > hi all,
> > > > this is a reminder to review the draft comment and share your thoughts.
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Rafik
> > > >
> > > > > Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 17:35, Rafik Dammak [log in to unmask] a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > Thanks to Austin and Shiva, we have a draft comment for NCSG
> > > > > consideration on Initial Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds
> > > > > Cross-Community Working Group
> > > > > You can find the draft here
> > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XL_KZuzd9TD8w74mndklzpHLV37MYrJdGPbW5Ucn0ao/edit
> > > > > and the related report here
> > > > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018-10-08-en.
> > > > > Please review and add your comments.
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Rafik
>
> --
>
> Arsène Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international
>
> http://www.rudiinternational.org,CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*,
> Tel: +243 993810967
> GPG: 523644A0
> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors
> & Mexico
> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)
>
> - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow (
> Mauritius
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)*
|
