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

[Daniel Dardailler]

Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation 
review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various 
scenario we're looking at.

Thanks.


On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds