Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the issue of fund raising, auctions and monies.

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, Colleagues,

When I proposed a Development responsibility and the $10,000,000 
number, I mentioned that in addition to possible sources of funding 
external to the current Stakeholders and extended Community, and the 
possible sources of funding or in-kind contribution by registry 
technical services providers, or entities providing less than the 
complete set of services applicants must account for in their 
applications, with the cooperation of registrars a third source of 
funding is possible, from registrants who want to offer much smaller 
dollar amounts, but in larger numbers, through registrars willing to 
add the "dollar (or variable denomination) checkbox".
I don't think we know what the registrar's response to this is, yet.

> Some points I would like to make on fund raising.
>
> a - There are two ways in which outside funding can come into this process:
This overlooks the in-kind, but that may be intentional.

> b - In the first instance there just needs to be a way to match the donor with 
> the applicant (after qualification of  course)
This assumes that we allow donors to choose beneficiaries. There are 
advantages, and disadvantages, to either choice.
> c - in the second instance there needs to be a way to properly/legally receive 
> and administer the funds.
Not "vertically integrated with unknown controls" to borrow from the 
VI mess, but we don't yet know from ICANN Corporate counsel if a 
distinct entity is required, or simply a distinct accounting so that 
this is not co-mingled in the "general fund". How the desired 
functional separation is implemented is TBD.
> d - in terms of auctions ...
No comment.

> e - ... if recommendations made by this group, like the staged payment of fees 
> ...
Agree. There is also retro-active fee reduction as a possibility, 
which is windfall revenue (and of keen interest to the applicant 
looking at each of the first 8 quarters of anticipated revenues from 
higher revenue oer unit portions of the registry's inventory). There 
is also the recurring fee, which at $25k/year is still onerous.
> f - Even if the money from auctions are not available at the beginning ...until 
> such a 'foundation' is created, all of this is moot.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Offers may remain "offers" until 
applied to an applicant, so this could be a "cashless" activity and 
still yield cash benefits (in-kind overlooked for the moment) to 
qualified applicants, with all accounting done in chits rather than in 
cash.
I don't disagree with Avri's conclusion beginning with "Thus".

The HSTLD AG published an RFI intending to get industry response to 
its "High Security" proposal (ask me over a beer what I think of it), 
and other bits of the Policy Development Processes have solicited 
external comment, paid and unpaid.
No one currently in the JAS has a recent work history as the 
development director of an NGO that ran a campaign to raise a seven or 
eight figure fund, and we do have some ICANN awareness from the 
corporate counsels of NGOs that do run such campaigns.
I propose we start on the task of asking those with specific 
discipline knowledge (subject matter expertise) what we could be 
asking candidates for the role of actually raising funds.
UNESCO has published an RFP, the ICRC and American Red Cross have 
commented on ... the issues Debbie cares most about, we have some 
starting points, some initial contacts with clue as to what we're 
about, and clue as to what international development in the seven and 
eight figure ranges is about.
Eric