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

Fri Apr 21 15:31:36 UTC 2017

I note that I took “wide net” to refer to both participants and applicants (I took a wide view of it!). if that is clearly the interpretation then I agree with your comment and suggestion.

EN

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:23 AM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> I have incorporated the small changes around typos to the text attached and added a couple of small edits (just for clarification), see attached.
>  
> I was trying to incorporate the text of the paragraph change proposed below that talks about the “wide net” but I was not able to do so, because on the letter, the “wide net” refers to have a large number of people from different stakeholders participating in the process. However, the text below refers (if I understand it correctly) about the themes/topics/types of projects/initiatives to fund, as a congruence with ICANN’s mission is mentioned? Am I understanding this the wrong way?
>  
> The existing text on the letter says:
>  
> The CCWG supports the Board’s recommendation that a wide net should be cast and is happy to report that in addition to the members appointed by the CCWG Chartering Organizations, 45 participants and over 20 observers have signed up for this effort, many of which have no direct affiliation with ICANN SO/ACs. The CCWG recognizes that in addition to participation in the CCWG deliberations there is also the question of who will eventually be eligible to apply for the funds which is something that is expected to be addressed as part of its deliberations on the charter questions.
>  
> The change/addition proposed is below, and although I see the point, I don’t really see how to merge the 2 together as they about 2 different things.
>  
> 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
> alignment 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.
>  
> My suggestion will be to have 2 paragraphs, one about the wide net for stakeholders to engage, and a second one about looking at a wide range of topics/themes that might benefit the development of the Internet and the tension between that very important objective, and the need/desire to be aligned with ICANN’s mission.
>  
> Warm regards,
>  
> Sylvia
>  
> ————
>  
> Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs sylvia at apnic.net | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia
> http://www.apnic.foundation
>  
> ISIF Asia http://www.isif.asia FB ISIF.Asia @ISIF_Asia
>  
> From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
> Date: Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 11:56 pm
> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, elliot 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
> 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
>  
> <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board  - updated 21 April 2017[2].docx>_______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> 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/20170421/44879dca/attachment-0001.html>