[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles

[Erika Mann]

*Dear All - *

*We like to make some proposals that relate to the discussion you were
having in various email exchanges. We discussed these topics in the
leadership team on Tuesday and we do hope you find our recommendations
helpful. We may have some time today at the end of our exchange with Sarah
to talk about these topics.*



   - *In relation to the discussion about the preamble, we recommend the
   following approach: As discussed prior to ICANN61, instead of reworking the
   preamble at this stage, we recommend to defer this item to the
   implementation phase with an explanation of the purpose this preamble
   should serve. We should explain that part of the reason why we thought we
   needed such a preamble was to help future project evaluators to understand
   ICANNs mission driven environment.  If you remember, we were worried that a
   too narrow understanding of the mission statement, would create problems in
   the future. In the meantime we achieved an understanding - with the Board -
   that projects that 'are in service of the mission'' might still fall within
   the mission and might therefore receive funding.  In addition, the examples
   we collected, provide guidance for project evaluators on what is considered
   to fall within service of ICANN's mission. The details are subsequently
   expected to be worked out by the implementation review team (which will
   also consist of community members), supported by staff.  *
      - *Additionally, we will have to send a reply to the most recent
      letter from the Board, the Board touched on this topic in particular. We
      will send you our draft for review shortly so we can come back to this
      discussion.*



   - *In conjunction with the previous point, we want to re-emphasize that
   the CCWG is expected to focus on high level recommendations that address
   the questions that are outlined in the charter. As such, we would like to
   encourage us all to focus on those high-level aspects. For example, there
   has been some discussion on this list on the size that the different
   tranches of funding allocation should have. We do not think that this is
   something that the CCWG is asked to decide on – instead, a CCWG
   recommendation could be that funding should be allocated in tranches with
   further details to be worked out in the subsequent stages following
   adoption of the recommendations.*



   - *Similarly, suggestions were made on the list to set aside funds to
   support ICANN to undertake research in a specific area. As noted in the
   charter, the CCWG is not tasked to make decisions with regard to which
   projects should be funded, instead, one of the charter questions asked,
   whether ICANN Org could be a beneficiary of some of the auction funds.
   Therefore the CCWG should focus on that question.*



   - *Of course, it is not our intention to stifle discussion, but as our
   timeline is short, we want to make sure that everyone focuses on what needs
   to get done in order to publish an Initial Report by ICANN62. As such, we
   would like to encourage you to review the input that has been received to
   date by external experts, both in the form of responses to the survey as
   well as participation in our calls, so you can let us know what, if
   anything, is missing to facilitate a determination of which mechanism(s) is
   preferred and should be considered in detail in the next phase of our work.
   If there is time remaining on our call on Thursday, we will touch upon
   these questions.*


*Warmest regards, *
*Erika *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180412/8b5714f9/attachment.html>