[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 06:34:54 UTC 2017

Hello Sylvia,

That is right and indeed my intention in case I wasn't clear enough.
However I feel it is the option we are going for that will determine what
mechanisms/processes we will be recommending in our report (re: chart
before the horse).


Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 16, 2017 6:56 AM, "Sylvia Cadena" <sylvia at apnic.net> wrote:

That is correct Sean, but we are tasked to provide recommendations about
how the selected mechanism will in fact do the work. So, it is not enough
to say we want to use A, B or C but to provide recommendations or at least
a list of issues the selected mechanism administrator will have to take
into account. The way I see it is like coming up with a comprehensive list
of Terms of Reference for the administrator of the mechanism (whatever that
is) to define the whole framework.


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

*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
*Date: *Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 3:42 pm
*To: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
*Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

*Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD
Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC


As I understand it, our job is mainly to recommend mechanisms to manage
funds, we are not the ones to review applications, neither are we to
approve funding. This is why I feel continuously interviewing
funding/foundation organisation at this stage sounds to me like putting the
chart before the horse.

I personally feel we need to agree on an overall mechanism to use first at
a high level, it is at that time we can then look into how to make that
mechanism work. I don't know what else we will want to hear from external
foundations about the 4 options we currently have[1] on the table as I
don't think they can choose one for us, we have to do that ourselves.
However I believe they can contribute significantly to helping us flesh out
the details that will make the option we choose work well.

Overall, I am open to us learning as much as possible, but I think we
should not loose sight on what we need to do as a task. I will also like to
request that the Chair let us know by mail whenever engagement of external
experts is no longer voluntary.


1. Infact one may say external foundation organisation may be "somewhat"
conflicted in that because one or 2 if the options apply to them.

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 15, 2017 3:44 PM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions:

I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure
out how.

I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation;
and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations.  I do note that we are
not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard
Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of.

I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and
regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing
in new thoughts at this late date.

In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be
our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would

suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning
from might apply for Auction fund supported projects,

we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to
only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but
sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-)


*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM
*To:* Seun Ojedeji
*Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD
Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be
found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw
This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG
members and participants.

With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was
circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for
dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following.

The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst
the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as
there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start
digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the
preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi:
identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism
is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with
regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For
example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in
determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has
very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of
each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up
similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in
this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as

If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this
determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the
leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these
should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning
the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding
items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so
moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone

Best regards,


*From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39
*To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
*Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
*Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD
Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Hello Marika,

Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who
the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of
people within this CCWG?

To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should
ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group
is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that.

I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with
documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about
the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi
which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which
are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey)


Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction
Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at
14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially
the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions
identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the
comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether
there are any questions missing.



*Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16
November at 14.00 UTC*

1.      Roll Call

2.      Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates

3.      Completing stage 2:

a.      Review of updated examples document (see attached)

b.      Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to
circulate latest version prior to meeting)

c.       Discuss next steps

4.      Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document

5.      Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached)

6.      Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30
November 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*
visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org]
*. *

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20171116/fc532c17/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list