[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Notes and action items - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 31 May 2018
Sylvia Cadena
sylvia at apnic.net
Thu Jun 14 07:10:28 UTC 2018
Sorry Daniel, but with the changes from HTML to plain text that some emails experience when passing through the mailing list, I can't really see exactly what your comments are. Would you mind to send them again but on the document or as part of the text of the new email?
---------
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
On 6/6/18, 5:55 am, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of danield at w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
I realized yesterday that the way names were removed in the earlier
anonymization phase
of the examples denatured the intent of my original example.
I'd like that my original example be edited as describe below (with my
rationales).
On 2018-06-05 21:25, Marika Konings wrote:
> Thanks, Daniel. I have no issue updating it as suggested but can you
> please share your suggestion with the mailing list so others have an
> opportunity to weigh in?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 6/5/18, 13:14, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Marika,
>
> I realize this email didn't go out yesterday, I hope you can still
> include it.
>
> It's a modification to the example that I originally provided and
> that
> was edited when the anonymization took place.
>
> Today it reads:
>
> Support work done by open standards developing organizations that
> are of
> common interest such as:
> ● enhanced online security and privacy,
> ● work on handling IDN and Universal acceptance issues,
> ● more guidelines and tools for Internet users,
> ● better education programs on Open Standards,
> ● more open APIs for mobile apps and social network platform to
> ensure a
> strong hyperlink paradigm,
> ● more involvement in Open standard advocacy, and in solving IPR
> issues,
> ● more resources for testing standards - critical to providing an
> open
> environment.
> (Note, any such work should be in service of ICANN’s mission).
>
>
> And if I could update the googledoc, I'd replace it with:
>
> Support work done by Internet and Web Open Standards Developing
> Organizations that are of common interest such as:
> ● enhanced online Internet and Web security and privacy,
> ● work on handling IDN and Universal acceptance issues in Web
> browsers
> and tools,
> ● more guidelines and tools for Internet and Web users,
> ● better education programs on Internet and Web Open Standards,
> ● open APIs for Web mobile apps and social network platform to
> ensure a
> strong hyperlink paradigm,
> ● more involvement in Internet and Web Open standard advocacy, and
> in
> solving IPR issues,
> ● more resources for testing Internet and Web standards - critical
> to
> providing an open environment.
> (Note, any such work should be in service of ICANN’s mission).
>
>
> The rationale is that since there is an explicit caveat wrt to the
> mission service, being precise about the fact that it's for
> Internet and
> Web standards is important, as I don't want my example to give
> ideas to
> non Internet related SDOs.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On 2018-05-31 22:46, Marika Konings wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Please find below the notes and action items of today’s new gTLD
> > Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Note that the next meeting will be
> > scheduled for Thursday 14 June at 14.00 UTC
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marika
> >
> > NOTES & ACTION ITEMS – CCWG AUCTION PROCEEDS MEETING – 31 MAY
> 2018
> >
> >
> > _These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate
> through
> > the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
> > transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are
> > provided separately and are posted on the wiki at:
> >
> __https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw-5F&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=_fyeaYF7MwTlkaGxZ4SH5oOGqdvP_5E6-_hBD2DzfY4&s=cBsPtBP1grtqKUBZs5jruen2UdYrkmyEzUBfyec9mWA&e=
> [1]_._
> >
> > 1. Roll Call
> >
> > * Roll Call will be taken from Adobe Connect
> > * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes
> and
> > don't forget to mute your line / microphone when not speaking to
> avoid
> > interruption.
> > * Audio only: Xavier Calvez (only first part of the meeting),
> Kavouss
> > Arasteh
> >
> > 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates
> >
> > * Reminder - please check your SOI/DOIs and make sure these are
> up
> > to date
> >
> > 3. Next steps for addressing charter questions
> >
> > * See email circulated by Erika earlier today
> > * See template that was circulated to facilitate developing a
> > response to the remaining charter questions. Leadership is
> offering to
> > develop a first draft response to the charter questions for CCWG
> > review, if possible prior to ICANN62.
> > * See letter from the ICANN Board providing input on the
> mechanisms
> > discussion. Board is of the view that there should be various
> tranches
> > of funding so that the mechanism chosen can be closely monitored
> and
> > adjustments, if needed, can be made. Mechanisms chosen should
> focus on
> > effective and efficient disbursement. More information will be
> needed
> > on relevant costs of the different mechanisms. Should be able to
> > evaluate and monitor projects on a global basis. More work needed
> on
> > ensuring a common understanding and providing additional
> definition of
> > the mechanisms in advance of public comment.
> > * Board letter seems to suggest that CCWG should not rush for
> public
> > comment.
> > * Any direct costs like communication, etc. should all be funded
> out
> > of the proceeds or would some of these come out of ICANN's
> general
> > budget? Board has not actually discussed that yet - cost for
> > evaluating, managing, running the program would need to come out
> of
> > the funding. Discreet items such as a communications plan in
> advance
> > has not been discussed in particular, but could be considered
> > inclusive of overall running of the program. Cost associated with
> a
> > communication plan should be factored in. Measuring efficiency of
> > funds need to take into account holistic viewpoint of costs that
> are
> > associated with setting up / running a mechanism. CCWG may need
> to map
> > out the different cost elements to get a better idea and track
> key
> > areas of costs to determine how these would be funded. Need to
> look at
> > costs from a standalone perspective. ICANN's ongoing funding is
> not
> > set up to take care of this - all costs are expected to come out
> of
> > auction proceeds. Once implementation starts, this is expected to
> come
> > out of auction proceeds funding.
> > * Further input on expected / max overhead costs may also be
> needed.
> > Board previously mentioned a 5% threshold. Is there flexibility
> there
> > to ensure efficiency / effectiveness balance? What is reasonable
> and
> > what is cost effective, depends on the circumstances and the
> nature of
> > the grants that are being made. % was never intended to be a hard
> /
> > fast line. % needs to be reasonable in light of the objectives of
> the
> > program. Focus should be on the use for proceeds in furtherance
> of the
> > mission instead of administrative costs. Could ask in work on
> general
> > description to provide an indication if overhead costs would be
> closer
> > to 3 or 10 %, for example.
> > * Need to also evaluate mechanisms according to the defined
> > principles mentioned in the Board letter. Factor this into the
> draft
> > response to charter questions.
> > * Need to further consider how feasible tranching is as it will
> > depend on size of fund allocation, similar would need to further
> > discuss what mechanisms would need to be put in place that would
> > warrant changes / corrections. Board is committed to the notion
> that
> > funds would be allocated over a period of time to be able to
> ensure in
> > earlier stages that proper controls are in place to monitor and
> manage
> > applications and evaluations. Board has not yet considered
> possible
> > size of fund allocation to projects. Objectives of fund
> allocation
> > determined by the community would hopefully further clarity /
> guide
> > that conversation. Intersection between size of projects and
> costs of
> > overhead.
> > * One of the factors that will significantly impact costs, which
> is
> > not usually considered in any standard percentage, is the cost
> > inherent to supporting a multistakeholder process: whether it is
> to
> > organize some community communication on the overall process of
> the
> > auction proceeds, or to support transparency and accountability
> > mechanisms, these activities are rarely encountered elsewhere but
> are
> > prevalent at ICANN and are very resource consuming. That will
> > significantly impact the costs incurred for the program. If you
> take
> > an illustration that the Drafting Team early on and now this CCWG
> AP
> > have been working on the topic for 2 years, with ICANN's support,
> the
> > costs is already significant and we have not even started
> implementing
> > anything.
> > * CCWG could consider whether certain amounts are allocated to
> > baskets to focus on certain types of projects, including
> different
> > sizes. CCWG to re-evaluate if that is a recommendation it would
> like
> > to made.
> > * The topic of tranches is one of the operational consequence of
> the
> > board's fiduciary duty that the funds are used within mission and
> > effectively: releasing funds in tranches to a given recipient
> allows
> > to establish accountability mechanisms for that recipient to
> > demonstrate that the funds are appropriately used. The other
> tranche
> > topic is, as an example, to provide X million of dollars for
> > allocation during a given year, which also allows to control the
> > amount of effort required for evaluation and disbursement,
> allowing
> > to minimize risks of errors or issues.
> > * As a reminder, Sarah Berg has been asked to assist with
> developing
> > a general description of each of these mechanisms.
> >
> > ACTION ITEM #1: CCWG leadership to work on first draft of
> responses to
> > charter questions, factoring in board input as well as discussion
> > during today's meeting (31/5). To be circulated at the latest by
> 18
> > June to allow for sufficient time for CCWG to review.
> >
> > ACTION ITEM #2: CCWG to consider developing list of cost elements
> to
> > get a better idea and track key areas of costs and determine how
> these
> > would be funded (from auction proceeds or differently).
> >
> > 4. Planning for ICANN62
> >
> > * See email sent by Erika proposing to delay HIT session to
> ICANN63
> > and have a F2F meeting instead which would include an update to
> the
> > community. In addition, leadership team is available to come and
> speak
> > to / present to those groups that are interested. CCWG could
> consider
> > other mechanisms to provide updates to the community for example
> in
> > the form of a webinar. Regular newsletters are already provided
> to
> > ensure that chartering organizations have regular status updates.
> >
> > ACTION ITEM #3: CCWG to move forward with the changes that have
> been
> > proposed (postpone HIT session to ICANN63 and change it to a F2F
> > meeting instead.
> >
> > 5. Finalisation of preamble & reminder to review project examples
> by
> > Monday 4 June at 18:00 UTC
> >
> > * No further input received on the preamble so that document
> should
> > be considered final for inclusion in the Initial Report.
> >
> > ACTION ITEM #4: reminder, CCWG to review project examples by
> Monday 4
> > June at 18.00 UTC at the latest.
> >
> > 6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 7 or 14 June at
> 14:00
> > UTC)
> >
> > * Next meeting to be scheduled for 14 June at 14.00 UTC.
> >
> > _MARIKA KONINGS_
> >
> > _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
> >
> > _Email: marika.konings at icann.org _
> >
> > _ _
> >
> > _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
> >
> > _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
> [2]
> > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
> >
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=
> > [2]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=_fyeaYF7MwTlkaGxZ4SH5oOGqdvP_5E6-_hBD2DzfY4&s=HC-r_WCH882FI9WSVAydTmhnCZw4T7RGy4GxO_ykk10&e=
> > [3]
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=_fyeaYF7MwTlkaGxZ4SH5oOGqdvP_5E6-_hBD2DzfY4&s=nk0aJFVmh6AcPk_7chLc1uvuPOV0hJ9wTpkjQa6vbRA&e=
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> > Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list