[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Board reply and CoI

Sylvia Cadena sylvia at apnic.net
Thu May 11 02:49:05 UTC 2017

Hi Daniel, 

The board approval/adoption of CCWG recommendations is part of the CCWG charter, which was the base for the CCWG to start these discussions. 


Sylvia Cadena | sylvia at apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation

On 9/5/17, 12:30 am, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of danield at w3.org> wrote:

    Hello all
    In thinking more about the CoI issue wrt the board requirement of 
    separation between the "strategists" (this group), the "funders" (the 
    group that will evaluate proposals and give funds), and the "fundees" 
    (the group receiving funds), it appears that the rationales we've used 
    in the Board reply:
    ".. the CCWG is currently operating on the basis that as long as CCWG 
    members / participants declare their intention to (potentially) apply 
    for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds once the proposed mechanism has been 
    approved by the ICANN Board, this provides for sufficient transparency 
    and accountability in this stage of the process, as the decisions for 
    final funding allocation will not be taking by this CCWG but by the 
    mechanism defined."
    don't really point to an important reason for the CCWG participants to 
    be free of CoI issue at that level: the funding system being designed by 
    the CCWG is not going to get approved by the CCWG itself but by the 
    Board, the CCWG being only an advisory body sending recommendations, and 
    the board holding the final approval.
    Is this something we've talked about before and didn't mention in the 
    reply on purpose ?
    (sorry to come up late in the board reply agenda with that comment, but 
    we can probably keep it as one more rationale on our side, in the CoI 
    question bucket)
    On 2017-05-04 19:55, Marika Konings wrote:
    > Dear all,
    > The updated templates for charter question 5 and 7, per the discussion
    > during last week’s meeting, have now been posted on the wiki for
    > your review: https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw.
    > Note that we’ve also created a page that includes the relevant links
    > to the work that has been undertaken to date to identify CCWG
    > member/participant expertise as well as external expertise, see
    > https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw.
    > As always, you are encouraged to share any comments and/or edits you
    > have with the mailing list.
    > Best regards,
    > Marika
    > _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]. _
    > Links:
    > ------
    > [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
    > [2]
    > 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
    Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
    Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list