[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board

[Daniel Dardailler]

On 2017-04-19 22:00, Erika Mann wrote:
> Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are
> saying.

+1 to raising this issue explicitly.

I'd go even further and say that the desire to cast a wide net is 
ICANN's desire in the first place.

Also, I think attorn is too strong/legally charged a word, and would use 
acknowledge instead.

I would also explain why this limit is an issue.

That would give this paragraph:

   "We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, 
this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with 
ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of 
aiignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note 
that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be 
detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the 
Internet vs. to ICANN."


Also, there is a typo in "Organzation"




> 
> @Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
> 
> Thanks,
> Erika
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss at tucows.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marika,
>> 
>> There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate.
>> I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a
>> “wide net”. Something like:
>> 
>> * “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is
>> constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s
>> mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of
>> congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also
>> note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
>> 
>> I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of
>> this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN
>> congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or
>> the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism
>> (board members on the list take note! :-)).
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> EN
>> 
>>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings
>>> <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your
>>> review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to
>>> address the comments raised during the call. Please share any
>>> further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by
>>> Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>>> 
>>> _MARIKA KONINGS_
>>> _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
>>> _Email: marika.konings at icann.org  _
>>> _ _
>>> _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
>>> _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
>>> [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _
>>> <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board  - updated 18 April
>>> 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
> [2]
> http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
> [3] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds