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

[Vanda Scartezini]

Since I am not able ( webex nor phone call is working today for me even restarting my MAC) I would like to agree with this Approach.
I understand details in this phase will just postpone the process to be followed in the implementation, where we can go deeply into those points.
I am sorry could not attend the call even trying for so long…
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.





From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:44
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles


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/20180412/1d46e8a7/attachment-0001.html>