[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated project examples document

Tue May 15 12:02:53 UTC 2018

Well understood Anthony. Thank you for these comments.

Kind regards,
Erika

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Marika,
>
> Thanks for this well compiled list of examples.
>
> I have one comment related to the following:
>
>
> *(Previously #12)Projects that educate users about what a website is and
> how they can obtain a unique identifier -- without prejudice to gTLD or
> country code. This may be of particular interest to small and medium
> businesses or farms, and entrepreneurs. Projects should avoid “marketing”
> any particular option, but help to highlight how the DNS works, and how to
> use a domain name, generally. *
> I beleive this was one of my early suggestions...
>
> Perhaps the way it is worded raises concerns about it being a "marketing"
> initiative.
>
> I would suggest that ICANN's main source of funding today is from
> contributions received from
> registries and registrars (related to the sale of domain names; proceeds
> from the sale ol ASNs
> and IP address blocks are retained by the RIRs such as RIPE, ARIN, etc.).
> The social networks
> have become preferred means of online identification and content
> exhibition, specially Facebook
> and Instagram. ICANN has no business in marketing TLDs of course, but in
> view of the budget
> issues that have emerged recently, it might be useful to have some
> programs going that simply
> highlight the characteristics of using a gTLD or ccTLD as a primary online
> ID, and the fact that
> controlling the vehicle of online content exhibition might contribute to
> avoid scenarios such as
> the recent Facebook episodes.
>
> In a way, example 3 has some concurrence with this comment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tony Harris
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In relation to action item 2, please find here the updated version of the
>> project examples for your review: https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/1QHJneNt5epskQoGRjnmonM-vW8GyTz_SwBCaftNEgr0/edit?usp=sharing. Note
>> that I’ve accepted all proposed edits and made one additional one (in
>> redline) in response to a suggestion. Please review and provide any further
>> feedback you may have by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC at the latest. To
>> review the original comments and suggestions, please see
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9Z
>> eUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE/edit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marika
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
>> behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> *Date: *Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 13:05
>> *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's
>> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD
>> Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Please take specific note of the following
>> action items:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #1*: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide
>> input/feedback at the latest by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC – see
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit
>> [docs.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD-5FX-2DLGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=-llTFOvH8OUqfDgW5OmCJGj-lcofXzrij4DJb0hbLPM&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #4*: Staff to reopen survey to allow for additional
>> responses. Deadline: Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC. (Completed: the survey
>> can be accessed here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll
>> [surveymonkey.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Ccwgapstrawpoll&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=xdpBFA1K2XevSxmwSp49PGwioDqSeXx7kMCmMchXkIs&e=>
>> – note, those that have already completed the survey do not need to do so
>> again).
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #5*: CCWG members and participants to respond to survey, if
>> they have not done so yet. Staff to send a reminder.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marika
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>>
>>
>>
>> *New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC*
>>
>>
>>
>> *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://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw*
>> <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=>
>> *.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Roll Call
>>
>> ·         Roll call will be taken from Webex
>>
>> ·         Please remember to mute your microphone to avoid background
>> noise and state your name for transcription purposes
>>
>>
>>
>> Preamble
>>
>> ·         See latest version shared on the mailing list just prior to
>> the meeting.
>>
>> ·         CCWG discussed previously whether to further work on it based
>> on the board input or whether to drop it. Agreed to undertake some further
>> work to see if it would be possible to modify it to address the Board input
>> received and get it into a state to include it in the Initial Report for
>> community consideration.
>>
>> ·         Only a small number of CCWG members/participants provided
>> input - important that everyone now has a look at it and see if you are
>> comfortable with the updates as made, for inclusion in the Initial Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #1*: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide
>> input/feedback at the latest by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC – see
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit
>> [docs.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD-5FX-2DLGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=-llTFOvH8OUqfDgW5OmCJGj-lcofXzrij4DJb0hbLPM&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Project Examples
>>
>> ·         Further comments & edits provided through google doc. Staff to
>> produce a consolidated version aiming to address all comments / edits.
>>
>> ·         CCWG should not use specific examples as that would be biasing
>> readers - examples need to be general (e.g. a respectable entity instead of
>> the name of an organization)
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #2*: Staff to produce a consolidated version for CCWG review
>>
>> *Action item #3*: CCWG to review consolidated version once circulated by
>> staff. Input to be provided by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC at the latest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Survey results
>>
>>    - See summary (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-DFSFDH79L/
>>    [surveymonkey.com]
>>    <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_results_SM-2DDFSFDH79L_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=yL138NfaFPT-Lly6JsRAwQpaHNn15-jmPeioikd6tOE&e=>)
>>    and consolidated version shared on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
>>    - As a reminder, the straw poll survey was set up to be able to make
>>    an assessment whether certain mechanism(s) would score higher against the
>>    criteria outlined by the CCWG than others in order to make a determination
>>    which mechanism(s) should be considered in further detail in the next phase
>>    of work. Unfortunately response levels were fairly low: only 39% of members
>>    and 17% of participants responded.
>>    - Did members consult with their appointing organizations? ALAC
>>    members did, although it was difficult to summarize the conversations to
>>    date.
>>    - Would it be possible to see the responses based on just members
>>    input - does that change the ranking?
>>    - Co-chairs did not participate at this stage to let the CCWG make a
>>    determination.
>>    - There are pros and cons to having the community involved - need to
>>    understand what is meant by community involvement. All mechanisms appear to
>>    allow for community involvement to a certain extend.
>>    - All mechanisms will need to meet legal and fiduciary requirements.
>>    The survey asked about best equipped to meet legal and fiduciary
>>    requirements, but indeed the understanding is that all mechanisms will need
>>    to meet these requirements.
>>    - Will need a more detailed presentation on the four mechanisms for
>>    the upcoming meeting
>>    - Disappointing to see low response rate from members to the CCWG.
>>    - Responses to the survey are mainly based on assumptions instead of
>>    concrete information being available. All mechanisms are viable. There will
>>    be differences, but would need some scenarios that would need to have more
>>    flesh on them. Could you also split funds over different mechanisms?
>>    - May need to be more forceful in decision-making process?
>>    - Looking at rating for four mechanisms, scoring is relatively close,
>>    with a current preference for a mechanism within ICANN. Does the CCWG want
>>    to pass all mechanisms to the Board and have them choose, or does the CCWG
>>    want to make a recommendation?
>>    - Should the survey be reopened to allow for some additional time for
>>    members / participants to respond?
>>    - Should an external person be engaged to flesh out these mechanisms?
>>    - May need to distinguish between internal to ICANN and external
>>    mechanisms? May be difficult as for example, a foundation could be
>>    considered internal too.
>>    - Discuss as part of next week's meeting, whether CCWG can narrow
>>    down the # of mechanisms to be further considered? As well as, should an
>>    external expert be engaged to put flesh on bones of each mechanism? CCWG
>>    expected to respond to these questions during next week's meeting.
>>    - Might be helpful to reach out to Board liaisons to see whether
>>    there are any red flags in relation to any of the mechanisms?
>>    - Note that charter questions and early conversations in relation to
>>    the charter questions have been documented here:
>>    https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw [community.icann.org]
>>    <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_PNrRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=61QnSkWdn3puHcX1pTEU-qCvYyWBwaSsAwfehIrDNAM&e=>.
>>    Those that joined the CCWG at a later stage, are encouraged to review this
>>    information.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #4*: Staff to reopen survey to allow for additional
>> responses. Deadline: Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC.
>>
>> *Action item #5*: CCWG members and participants to respond to survey, if
>> they have not done so yet. Staff to send a reminder.
>>
>> *Action item #6: *Staff to include scoring based on members responses
>> only.
>>
>> *Action item #7*: Staff to recirculate available presentation materials
>> as well as newsletters that members and participants can share with their
>> respective groups
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN62 Planning
>>
>> ·         High interest topic session scheduled for Wednesday 27 June
>> from 15.15 - 16.45
>>
>> ·         A CCWG meeting is being planned for Wednesday 27 June from
>> 17.00 - 18.30
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action item #8*: Staff to circulate doodle poll to assess CCWG member /
>> participant attendance for ICANN62.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Marika Konings*
>>
>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>>
>> *Email: **marika.konings at icann.org* <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>>
>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our **interactive courses
>> [learn.icann.org]*
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=uQDd8_00T1xXRc2LTgUYZ-_DEBgd9lha4rIVV_vSqT4&e=>* and
>> visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]*
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=f2g-fjqv-dqTGcr6hgnAqN9wBiLV5A75dCckaVXjMSY&s=9Gbtgj5craak5XfU_b4q0lfOgBrtugi9vMSGmB2grNQ&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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180515/2c8fb97a/attachment-0001.html>