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

[Erika Mann]

Really, really sorry Vanda that you could not join us and that I did not
notice your email earlier. WebEx is painful to handle.

I send an email to Daniel few minutes ago that reminds us about the
different phases of the CCWG work to setup a funding mechanism. And, yes,
you're right, the details about certain more specific funding decisions
should be debated and decided upon in the 'implementation phase' - the
phase that follows our work.

Thank you!
Erika

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
wrote:

> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, 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: A**s 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/20180412/7fb6eb4a/attachment-0001.html>