[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

Well it's fine to communicate that the cost might be more than 5% but
clearly indicating that to be 10% would have to be back with facts. I will
be fine with rewording that section to indicate that the cost may indeed
exceed 5% and leave it at that.

As to the trust, yes you are right I read that part wrongly (was a quick
read). Overall I think we should consider the cost implications of
maintaining a foundation and also whether the foundation will continue to
access funds beyond the auction proceeds would be something to consider.
Ultimately I agree that a foundation may be one of the ways to get ICANN to
legitimately spend the huge money(profit) she is making (as a
not-for-profit "tax exempt" organisation).

Regards

On Apr 25, 2017 21:07, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hello Marika,
>
> Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call
> (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments:
>
> 1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members
> indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of
> the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the
> following text:
> "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an
> overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG
> members/participants in different funding and project related environments."
>
>
> I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may
> not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as
> an absolute target until we understand the situation better.
>
>
> 2. On question 7, why are we  recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree
> that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point"
> applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as
> those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think
> recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more
> overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will
> be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a
> good thing to consider.
>
>
> I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we
> will *trust* and external body.
>
> However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point
> suggest the answer may be "Yes"
>
> Alan
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org > wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds
> meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note
> that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft
> response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last
> meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be
> sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please
> share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27
> April at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> 1.       Start of meeting – roll call
>
> 2.       Welcome & updates to DOIs
>
> 3.       Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached)
>
> 4.       Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and
> associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached)
>
> 5.       Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template)
>
> 6.       Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see
> attached template)
>
> 7.       Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> Marika Konings
>
> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigneed 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
> <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-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+
> Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+
> VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA==
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>          ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(
> 520002050)(750028);
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170426/ecc1c73b/attachment.html>