[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - CCWG AP Objective(s) Survey

Nadira Alaraj nadira.araj at gmail.com
Tue Jul 18 19:17:00 UTC 2017


​Thanks Marika for your efforts,
 I think it would be good to include a link to the following document in
the survey.
The legal and fiduciary principles (seehttps://community.icann.org/
download/attachments/58730906/May 2016 - Note to Auction Proceeds Charter
DT re legal and fiduciary principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=
1466697425000&api=v2
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2>
)​

Regarding the survey itself there is a typo in question 11. The fund
allocation is written "found"

Best, Nadira


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Per action item #4, please find at the following link a preview of the
> proposed survey concerning charter question #2 – objective(s) for fund
> allocation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=
> XtF4g0B8MN3nV7tnkhMvhFXhCiXyZVBGNUHow1I_2BzacwPmwRGAaujxO2pnWrYKWU.
> Please remember that this is a preview – no responses will be recorded. You
> are encouraged to share any comments and/or proposed edits regarding the
> poll with the mailing list *by Wednesday 19 July* by close of business
> (wherever you are). Do not use the comment function that is available in
> preview mode as it is not possible for others to review comments or
> proposed edits, only for the owner of the survey. The objective is to
> launch the survey on Thursday of this week so that the responses can be
> reviewed during next week’s meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika
> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 17:39
> *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's
> CCWG-AP meeting
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please
> take particular note of the following action item:
>
>
>
> *Action item #2*: CCWG members and participants that have not responded
> to the survey yet for charter question #4 are encouraged to complete the
> survey *by 20 July* (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4[
> surveymonkey.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_charterquestion4&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=a4BXmj_l7S2X1eHPtfFVx5R0s8gC2wYYPIhULD-ka48&e=>)
>
>
> *Action item #3*: CCWG members and participants that have not responded
> to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter
> question #7 *by 20 July* (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/
> r/charterquestion7[surveymonkey.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_charterquestion7&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=JREK3-xMXRTE5UcqWq-2UHPDANU0f1YjdsPoycA-JYs&e=>)
>
>
>
>
> You will find the responses received to date in the attached documents.
> Please make sure that your views are recorded by responding to the survey.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> ===================
>
>
>
> *New gTLD Auction Proceeds Meeting – 13 July 2017 - Notes*
>
>
>
> *These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the
> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript
> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and
> are posted on the wiki
> at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>.*
>
>
>
> *1.            Roll Call*
>
>    - Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect
>    - Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and
>    remember to mute your microphone when not speaking
>
>
>
> *2.            Welcome / DOI*
>
>    - Productive meeting held at ICANN59 - those not able to participate
>    are encouraged to review the transcript and recording.
>    - Everyone is encouraged to participate in surveys and other requests
>    for input as it will be imperative to be able to meet the timeline as set
>    out in the work plan
>
>
>
> *3.            Review of survey results charter question #4 (please
> complete the survey at
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4[surveymonkey.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_charterquestion4&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=a4BXmj_l7S2X1eHPtfFVx5R0s8gC2wYYPIhULD-ka48&e=>)
> *
>
>    - To date, 15 responses have been received.
>    - Currently views on question #1 re. timeframe for allocation of funds
>    are equally split between one-off exercise and long lasting mechanism
>    through possible investment.
>    - What return on investment could be obtained - that may determine
>    what timeframe you would be looking at? How much money per year, if the
>    CCWG would want to pursue this approach? This could be a potential question
>    for external experts? Board may also have input on this question based on
>    experience to date. Funds are currently invested with a view of
>    preservation so return is currently pretty small as investments are low
>    risk.
>    - In relation to the duration of projects to be supported, current
>    responses indicate that there is no specific preference for short time or
>    long term projects. Will at some point also need to consider cost of
>    overhead of short term vs. long term projects. Should provide some further
>    info on what is considered short term vs. long term. Short term could be 1
>    year or less, medium term up to 3 years, long term 5 years and up.
>    - Note that the different questions are interlinked. How money is
>    allocated is linked to the magnitude of projects funded, duration, etc.
>    Decisions on one will likely impact others.
>    - Please consider that CCWG does not have to select one single
>    mechanism. There can be one for short term / smaller amounts and other for
>    long term / large disbursements.
>    - Leadership team to review results and consider how to move forward
>    if there is no clear preference on some of these questions.
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: Staff to reach out Xavier to obtain further input
> regarding current investment and return.
>
> *Action item #2*: CCWG members and participants that have not responded
> to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter
> question #4 by 20 July.
>
>
>
> *4.            Review of survey results charter question #7 (please
> complete the survey at
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7[surveymonkey.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_charterquestion7&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=JREK3-xMXRTE5UcqWq-2UHPDANU0f1YjdsPoycA-JYs&e=>)
> *
>
>    - Difficult to answer without some further details - what would it
>    entail for ICANN to do this? Would it be a question of 3 people or 20?
>    Those details may determine whether it would be feasible and/or desirable
>    to have ICANN manage this. May also be a question for external experts
>    although some specificity would need to be provided to be able to provide a
>    response.
>    - One off - within ICANN, longer term - external to ICANN? May be
>    dependent on the answer to that question. Setting up a foundation was not
>    excluded when reviewing the AGB.
>    - With regards to community volunteer involvement, need to consider
>    not creating additional bureaucracy, costs as well as factor in possible
>    conflicts of interest.
>
>
>
> *Action item #3*: CCWG members and participants that have not responded
> to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter
> question #7 by 20 July.
>
>
>
> 5.            Review feedback received on charter question #2 survey &
> next steps (see attached documents)
>
>    - No further feedback received on the mailing list. A number of
>    updates made based on discussions during ICANN59 as well as one additional
>    response received.
>    - CCWG to determine how to move from this list to preliminary
>    agreement on what the (preliminary) agreed objective for fund allocation
>    should be.
>    - Criteria must be implementable and consistent with ICANN's mission.
>    Consider a possible check-list to see which of the criteria are most
>    consistent with ICANN's mission.
>    - Objectives and criteria are quite different. criteria refers
>    normally (with grants management) to eligibility, forms to fill, licensing,
>    use, copyright, etc. that is a very practical and operational. Objectives
>    are very important as that help applicants to decide if they want to apply
>    or not.
>    - SDGs is a good framework to consider. To broaden the desired impact
>    without broadening the mission (as ICANN's mission is narrow and might
>    change again in the future).
>    - Need to ask not only whether something is within ICANN"s mission,
>    but also rationale.
>    - Following determination / agreement on overall objective(s), CCWG
>    could go back to concrete examples and stress test those against the
>    mission.
>
>
>
> *Action item #4*: Staff to work with leadership team to develop survey
> that would assess support for different objectives as well as assessment of
> whether it falls within ICANN's mission and why. Share survey for preview
> with CCWG prior to launch.
>
>
>
> *6.            Questions for external experts – reminder (see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit)[docs.google.com]
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit)%5Bdocs.google.com%5D>*
>
>    - CCWG may need to identify at which stage of the process external
>    input will be most helpful. May require further details on scope/objective
>    for it to be a helpful conversation. Maybe focus first on scope/objective
>    related questions to help inform the current stage of deliberations.
>    - May need one-pager to explain status of work so external experts
>    have an understanding of the work of the CCWG, especially with regards to
>    scope. That may also help identify umbrella questions.
>
>
>
> *Action item #4*: CCWG encouraged to add questions for external experts
> to the google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_
> W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_152k-5FW8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=uZW2XypdnapzTHC4mUBW-j0_uDcqpZDTsUTEBJEgVV4&e=>
>
>
>
>
> *7.            Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 27 July at
> 14.00 UTC)*
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>  *
>
>
>
> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>
> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive
> courses[learn.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=JK30S68uvE6uiUXSCUON-UFs1_JzdNemgzJXVGKhc_4&e=> and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=hgtZqwKIaf5xP0WALVNThpy7J1Q5nJfQ8hIUiur0BtI&s=l4wvk5leVN2lbuk-hPoH32manu11JnH0yn7JR7EF630&e=>. *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170718/44f9a0c1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list