[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Google doc to review examples
Vanda Scartezini
vanda at scartezini.org
Thu Sep 14 18:28:02 UTC 2017
Dear Marika
sI have added some comments on example 5 and 8 but would like to assure after shared it if those comments are available to everyone in the loop to see them.
Thank you for your feedback
Some times in my MAC google Docs does no work properly.
Kisses
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
On 9/14/17, 15:09, "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 Marika
>
>I think that there is a duplicate in the table, look for "25 women and
>25 men "
>
>I don't see an example related to funding open Web standard development,
>just one for the IETF endowment, which is different. Can I add it to the
>table ? Or do you want some text ?
>
>
>
>
>On 2017-09-12 11:44, Marika Konings wrote:
>> In relation to action item #6 (“Staff to create google doc with all
>> examples received to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of
>> those examples is consistent with the proposed objectives as well as
>> ICANN's mission”), please see
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit?usp=sharing
>> [1] and add your comments / suggestions to the document. As explained
>> in the document, the objective is to review and analyze the examples
>> that have been provided to date in relation to new gTLD Auction
>> Proceeds allocation. As ultimately allocation needs to occur
>> consistent with ICANN’s mission as well as the objectives set by the
>> CCWG, you are requested to indicate for each of these examples with
>> which part of ICANN’s mission it is considered consistent as well as
>> which part of the proposed objectives. You may also indicate if you do
>> not consider the proposed example consistent with either ICANN’s
>> mission and/or the objectives.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika
>> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> DATE: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 17:45
>> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>> SUBJECT: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's
>> meeting
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG
>> Auction Proceeds meeting. For those of you that were not able to
>> attend the meeting, please take particular note of action item #1.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> NOTES - CCWG AP MEETING - 7 SEPTEMBER 2017
>>
>> _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 [2]._
>>
>> _1. Roll Call_
>>
>> * Attendance will be taken from AC room
>> * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and
>> mute your microphones when not speaking
>>
>> _2. Welcome / DOI_
>>
>> * Note that letter from the Board is on the agenda for today's
>> meeting - it already drew some discussion on the list, also from the
>> perspective of DOI.
>>
>> _3. Review redrafted objectives and examples_
>>
>> i. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives
>>
>>
>> _ _
>>
>> * Note latest draft that has been circulated. Is this now at a stage
>> where people feel comfortable to preliminary agreeing to this version,
>> noting that there are still some open items that need to be addressed
>> and may impact the final wording.
>> * Third item could be merged into first one so it would read 'Benefit
>> the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that
>> support the Internet's unique identifier systems'. Agreement to update
>> this bullet accordingly. Some wordsmithing may need to be done later,
>> but intent is clear.
>>
>> * Preliminary agreement by those on the call on the following
>> proposed objectives:
>>
>> * Specific objectives of new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation
>> are:
>>
>> * 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and
>> structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier
>> systems';
>> * Benefit structures or projects that directly support the Internet's
>> unique identifier systems;
>> * Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, and;
>> * Benefit the Open Internet. [Note, the definition of Open Internet
>> is subject to a separate conversation]
>>
>> New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner
>> consistent with ICANN’s mission.
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #1: CCWG to review proposed objectives for new gTLD
>> Auction Proceeds fund allocation that achieved preliminary agreement
>> by those on the call (see above). If there are any concerns or
>> objections, members/participants are encouraged to share these with
>> the mailing list as soon as possible.
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #2: Staff to create list of preliminary agreements to
>> which this agreement and previous one will be added.
>>
>> ii. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open
>> internet’
>>
>> * See latest draft circulated on mailing list just prior to this
>> meeting which aims to bring together the different versions and
>> comments that have been received to date.
>> * Is 'Open Internet' too identified with Net Neutrality? Consider a
>> possible alternative wording such as Open and Interoperable Internet
>> or open interoperable Internet. Not create an impression that this
>> group is trying to define a term which is already being used in other
>> contexts. Also make clear that it concerns a network of networks. Not
>> about defining Open Internet but how fund allocation might fit into
>> the broader scope of Open Internet. But some may just ignore this
>> nuance so need to consider whether to use different terminology.
>> * Some concerns expressed about some of the bullet points - CCWG to
>> consider whether all of these belong here. Also consider making the
>> statements more high level and moving some of the examples to a
>> different section / annex. Providing examples may also trigger
>> proposals that are focused on those specific examples so may not be
>> advisable. Examples may be helpful for evaluators though - could
>> consider not publishing the examples with call for proposals but as
>> guidance for evaluators or as part of an FAQ for possible applicants?
>> This discussion may be premature as materials for applicants and/or
>> evaluators are for a later stage. Focus on examples here is to ensure
>> that there is a common understanding on what the focus and objectives
>> of fund allocation is.
>> * While this group is focused on gTLDs, it should be recognized that
>> ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perhaps
>> this could become a neutral statement about the importance of an
>> online presence and providing information about all kinds of TLDs?
>> * Even though infrastructure is related to ICANN's mission it is not
>> part of ICANN's mission so it is not clear that auction proceeds could
>> be used appropriately on infrastructure. As such, it may not be
>> appropriate to include reference to items that are not considered
>> within scope of ICANN's mission. The funds shouldn't go to technology
>> that are completely independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc.,
>> since this funding could be used against ICANN in the end, to create
>> e.g. another logical addressing system, names and numbers. Need to
>> look further into the question of whether infrastructure is considered
>> consistent with ICANN's mission or not.
>> * If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards
>> may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than
>> strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the
>> tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same
>> in the USA.? There are some proactive processes available through the
>> IRS though they may not be binding opinions. It is not just about the
>> IRS but there is also the broader ICANN community. If there is not
>> agreement amongst the Board and/or community whether something is
>> within ICANN's mission, it could result in an accusation of violation
>> of the Bylaws so there would need to be agreement amongst community
>> and Board about what is within ICANN's mission. Risk of expanding
>> mission statement through work of this group which may not be welcomed
>> by all.
>> * There is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to
>> mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #3: Staff to circulate google doc link to the mailing
>> list. (see
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-L4/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]
>> [3])
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #4: CCWG to review Open Internet Definition as available
>> on the google doc link and suggest updates/changes for CCWG
>> consideration
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #5: Sam Einsner to review language and provide feedback on
>> whether there are any concerns from an ICANN Org perspective
>>
>> iii. Review examples
>>
>> * Add examples that were circulated to the list by Tony.
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #6: Staff to create google doc with all examples received
>> to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of those examples is
>> consistent with the proposed objectives as well as ICANN's mission.
>>
>> _4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next
>> steps_
>>
>> * See Board response received on 1 September.
>> * Now for CCWG to consider response, if any, to the letter as well as
>> how feedback is expected to be addressed as part of the deliberations.
>> * Re. DOI - importance of being open and transparent in all parts of
>> the deliberations. May require further statement / clarification.
>> * Main issue for Board is concern about perception. CCWG needs to be
>> transparent about any/all decisions. CCWG to consider to clearly state
>> if they have a certain interest in the outcome when stating certain
>> positions (for example, if you or your organisation is
>> interested/planning to apply for funding to support infrastructure
>> projects, make sure to make that clear when advocating to add
>> infrastructure as an objective).
>> * May be helpful to have a standard / regular legal briefing on COI
>> and what constitutes a COI?
>> * Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests.
>> Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a
>> mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of
>> the content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not
>> sufficient, it only allows to take the next step when it is needed.
>> This is part of the rationale of the recommendation that the Board
>> made to this working group to establish a mechanism to deal with
>> identified conflict of interest.
>> * Consider further during next meeting.
>>
>> ACTION ITEM #7: CCWG to review their respective SOI/DOIs and make sure
>> that these are up to date.
>>
>> _5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the
>> different options that have been discussed in relation to charter
>> question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and
>> evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit,
>> within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on
>> this work; externally - working with already existing entities)_
>>
>> * Xavier and Sam are working on a presentation which would outline
>> the different options (internal / external).
>>
>> _6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 September 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 _
>>
>> _ _
>>
>> _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
>>
>> _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive
>> courses[learn.icann.org] [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer
>> pages[gnso.icann.org] [5]. _
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit?usp=sharing
>> [2]
>> 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=
>> [3]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-2DL4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=Dkxpx-9v_lmST8dT4BsCgZ4DzZdNNXbllo3TkQMGExM&e=
>> [4]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=RS0a2YtoddIgSmVY4K6158dTrh2dPpm2gvaqgwoPpk4&e=
>> [5]
>> 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=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=yN-lw6GEHmh5ZttIHoJnt0JXK2kCT-jlQlu_lTex8c4&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list