[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
danield at w3.org
Mon Sep 4 16:23:13 UTC 2017
To me, the important bit is this one:
".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the
enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work,
that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as
the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the
ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability
I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a
consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too
limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.
If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case
in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for
- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular
operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these
operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself.
- they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we
are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept
not limited to the ICANN mission
- they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting
beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and
- ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its
mission) to do a scope extension for these funds
- ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the
administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability,
security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS
and the Internet"
covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read
as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability,
security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:
> Dear All -
> herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.
> We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG
> AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will
> discuss the Board letter then for the first time.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker at board.icann.org>
> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM
> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP
> To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>,
> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org>,
> Avri Doria <avri at apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch"
> <sarahbdeutsch at gmail.com>, Board Operations
> <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>, Sally Costerton
> <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner
> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org>
> Dear Erika and Ching,
> Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the
> Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
> in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.
> On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in
> our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email.
> Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a
> letter including additional acknowledgements and requested
> Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds