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

[Vanda Scartezini]

Elliot
Appreciate your suggestion. I believe yes, that is important to make it quite clear to avoid future embarrassment.
The text may be improved to make it quite clear when translated to other languages, but as a non-English native will not suggest any changes.
Best,

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
HAPPY 2017!




From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM
To: E Noss <enoss at tucows.com>
Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board

Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.

@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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

<CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board  - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds


_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170420/963c3625/attachment-0001.html>