[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Next Call-European Investment Bank

Thu Apr 12 16:12:38 UTC 2018

Dear Judith

he may not be able to reply to our questions - time constraints. But I
believe it's still important to have an exchange with him. He's one of the
organizations that has a well established oversight structure to another
entity and he has zero conflict to our area.

I hope this will be accepted by our group.

I have prep-call setup with him on Monday to give him some insight into our
work and I will try to get him to reply to our questions but, he simply may
not have the time.

Kind regards,
Erika

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com
> wrote:

> HI Erika,
>
> Thanks for the call today. It was helpful.  You mentioned that our next
> call we will hear from a person from the European Investment Bank. I do not
> see his responses on the wiki
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Responses+received
>
> I would greatly appreciate if you can post them here.
>
> Thanks
>
> Judith
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> Hellerstein & Associates3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+20008&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com   Website: www.jhellerstein.com
> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
>
>
> On 4/12/2018 11:56 AM, Erika Mann wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel -
>
> Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:
>
> *We're tasked* to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be
> developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete
> CCWG text below.
>
> *We're not tasked* in recommendations or determination with regard to
> specific funding decision.
>
> Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding
> recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work.
> This phase we call 'implementation phase'.
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Erika
>
>
> CCWG AP complete task (https://www.icann.org/news/
> announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)
>
> "The CCWG *is tasked with developing a proposal(s)* for consideration by
> the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
> Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) *on the mechanism that
> should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds.*
> That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.
>
> As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal
> and fiduciary principles
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425839&api=v2>
> [DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt
> status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of
> interest.* The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations
> with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific
> organizations or projects are to be funded or not).*
>
> The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to
> and provide recommendations on the following questions1
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1>, taking
> into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary
> constraints outlined in the charter:
>
>    1. What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be
>    designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction
>    Proceeds?
>    2. What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that
>    the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the
>    same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves?
>    3. What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation
>    of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal
>    and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
>    4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any,
>    for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements
>    of funds?
>    5. What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put
>    in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
>    6. Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from
>    developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or
>    under-represented groups?
>    7. Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals,
>    or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a
>    foundation created for this purpose?
>    8. What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level
>    of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
>    9. What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide
>    distribution of the proceeds?
>    10. To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or
>    a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
>    11. Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible
>    adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and
>    implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the
>    original recommendations?
>
> As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan
> and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an
> Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be
> submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The
> ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the
> Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board
> does not believe that it can accept a recommendation.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180412/d1b8906b/attachment-0001.html>