Re: [npoc-voice] NPOC ExCom Proposal: An ICANN Endowment Fund for a Globalized Internet (working title)

[Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@xxxxxxxxx>]

One of the current  problems  of   current  ICANN Fellowship  programs and
other  equity  programs    is the  lack of  clear  links  to the  ICANN
 strategic  plans.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/strategic-engagement-2013-10-10-en

It's  not  clearly defined  that  they will implement proactive
 programming for  the  'marginalized'  groups.   I am working to promote
 the  First Nations  and the  Persons with Disabilities  in the  ICANN
 Ecospace for three years.  We have  managed to  make  ICANN  aware that
 many North American  Indian tribes  have  similar  income  challenges and
 serious   broadband  issues  similar to  Least Developed  Nations.
Secondly the  13% of the world  population that is  disabled   is  equally
victimized  in their access to information.   Judith  Hellerstein and
myself  have  been pushing  ICANN to adopt  full  CAPTIONING  in Adobe
Chats  and Captioning of all Videos    This  rights of the  disabled  under
  the  ADA  provisions and ICANN being a  501C  registered in the US
obligates  them to show fair and access and  hiring  practices.

G





Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn@xxxxxxxxx
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Dear NPOC colleagues,
>
> For quite a while there have been discussions and activities within the
> ICANN community around how better engage Internet stakeholders, especially
> those on the margins of the global Internet. At the same time, as a result
> of the previous new gTLD round, ICANN has accumulated modest funds from
> ICANN run gTLD auctions. The following proposal, from discussions within
> the NPOC Executive Committee, recommends (a) the establishment of an
> endowment fund, (b) a process for identifying the principles and objectives
> in the initiative, and (3) mechanisms for how funding allocation could be
> handled. The purpose of the proposal is to raise the issues on ICANN's
> overall action agenda.
>
> *Posted by: Sam Lanfranco, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee*
>
>
>  *An ICANN Endowment Fund for a Globalized Internet (**working title**) *
>
> (NPOC ExCom, January 6, 2015)
>
>
>
> ICANN has long professed a desire to better assist under serviced and
> marginalized populations in terms of their presence in the global Internet
> ecosystem. Within its remit, ICANN has undertaken a number of strategies
> ranging from the ICANN Fellowship program and new gTLD incentives, to
> outreach events designed to acquaint and equip stakeholder groups,
> including existing and potential registries and registrars, to better
> engage with the Internet ecosystem. ICANN’s various commercial and
> non-commercial stakeholder groups also routinely conduct similar outreach
> within their own communities.
>
> ICANN would like to do more, and have a greater impact, and ICANN has a
> potential source of funding to support such efforts. ICANN gTLD auctions
> are producing modest funds that have nominally been earmarked for ICANN “*good
> works*”, but without much attention paid to how that might be done.[1]
> <#14ac4f1b81753d3e__ftn1>
>
> With modest funds earmarked for ICANN “*good works*” there are two
> strategic questions:
>
>
>
> ·        First, what principles should guide the uses (the “*good works*”)
> to which the funds are put?
>
> ·        Second, what mechanisms should operate to manage the funds and
> funding allocation?
>
>
>
> The question regarding the principles guiding what activities should be
> targeted for funded can be approached in one of two ways. This could be
> decided within an ICANN Board lead discussion, or it could be arrived at as
> an ICANN community consensus using a process similar to the Policy
> Development Process (PDP). The advantage of a PDP process, possibly
> including a Charter-like focus prior to the PDP, would be greater
> awareness, broader consultation, and wider buy-in. Either way calls for a
> process.
>
>
>
> Regarding the mechanisms for how the funding allocation should be handled
> it would be wise to consider placing the funding in an *endowment fund*.
> That would result of smaller disbursals over a longer time period, greater
> possibilities for learning-while-doing and greater sustainable impact.
>
>
>
> As for how an endowment fund would be handled, ICANN itself is poorly
> structured to administer an endowment fund and it would not be a wise use
> of ICANN resources to try to develop that “in-house” capacity. Instead,
> ICANN could enter into an endowment management relationship with an
> appropriate existing foundation, much the way smaller endowments are
> handled by *Community Foundations* at the community level. ICANN would
> set the terms of reference for applying for and awarding grants, with some
> ICANN oversight and with some direct ICANN participation in the selection
> process.
>
>
>
> There are two parts to the identification of suitable mechanisms to
> administer the endowment fund and make allocations based on ICANN’s
> specified principles and objectives. The first is administrative capacity
> and there are numerous U.S. and global foundations with the necessary
> administrative capacity. The second part is the constitution of the grant
> awards committee. That committee could be constituted with representatives
> from a wider global constituency of entities aligned with the mission and
> vision of the endowment fund, and should include designated ICANN
> representation.
>
>
>
> With modest auction funding already accumulated it is time for ICANN to
> address the issue of how best to use those funds.
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> [1] <#14ac4f1b81753d3e__ftnref1> *Given the terms of reference for new
> gTLDs, ICANN does not raise as much as it could from the auctions of gTLDs
> where there are competing applicants. The applicants have devised private
> auctions to decide on the winning applicant, with auction proceeds going
> not to ICANN but to the losing applicants.*
>
>