[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated version of draft Initial Report

Sylvia Cadena sylvia at apnic.net
Tue Oct 2 12:31:44 UTC 2018

Hi everyone,

I think this updated version reflects well the input provided not only via the conference calls but through the many surveys, documents and email exchanges the group has had since the process started. It provides clear recommendations to move forward. Although there are some issues that I would rather see moving a bit differently, I look forward to review it again when then community input comes through.

Thank you to everyone that worked so hard to have this document ready for public comments.

I am again traveling, and family commitments might prevent me from joining the 4 Oct call (depending of the time) if the leadership team decides to go ahead with the call.




Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/>
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia<x-apple-data-detectors://5> | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100<tel:+61%207%203858%203100> |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199<tel:3858%203199>
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.

On 22 Sep 2018, at 9:34 pm, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org<mailto:danield at w3.org>> wrote:

Thanks Marika (and the other editors)

Some more comments, more on the form.

* Given we've changed Preamble section into Guidance.. (good), we need to update all the references to this section that are still using the word preamble, e.g. "The CCWG recommends that the preamble (see Annex D) ". There are a few of those.

* It would greatly help readers whenever we mention the Question numbers, if we provided some kind of summary of the question purpose as bubble help, or at least a link to the question text found below in the document.

 "Implementation guidance in relation to charter _question #1_"

would have the text
  "Q1: what framework for the disbursement of Auction funds ?"

appearing when moving the mouse over it, and/or a link to the full question text in the Background section.

* In general, whenever we use a reference, ala "See Section X", I find it kind of offending to the reader that the document doesn't give a link to the said section (I used to promote using HTML vs Word in open working groups, I'm passed that crisis ;) but at least we should use hyperlinks when it makes sense, now that Word supports them)

* There are a lot of occurrences of the word "implementation" in the report, and this is confusing because they don't always mean the same thing or use the same full name, e.g. Implementation phase, Implementation Process, Implementation guidance, etc.

I think we need to have a section called "Implementation Phase", which introduces what it is (as described already in 1.4, maybe with more details), and we need to point at it whenever we refer to it (with a link). And stick to that name.

e.g instead of
Implementation guidance in relation to charter question #2: The CCWG recommends that the preamble (see Annex D) and list of example projects (see Annex E) are considered during the implementation process.

we should use
Guidance for the _Implementation Phase_ in relation to charter _Question #2_: The CCWG recommends that the section on "Guidance for proposal review and Selection" (see _Annex D_) and list of example projects (see _Annex E_) are considered during the _Implementation Phase_.

This way, it will also be much easier to list all the things that we expect the Implementation Phase to do.

* The second diagram in Annex C is really too small to read, and since it's an image, can't really be zoomed in easily. We should provide real text, not pixels, and probably cut the figure in 2 pieces. For those 2 pictures, we should give a description in plain text (for accessibility reasons at least).

On 2018-09-21 01:16, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
Following today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting, please find
attached an updated version of the draft Initial Report in which
updates have been made (in redline) to reflect the deliberations and
agreement on how to move forward on the outstanding items that were
identified. In addition, staff has added language for the executive
summary, based on the current contents of the report. To facilitate
your review, previous redlines were accepted (for those wanting to
review the previous version, please see
https://community.icann.org/x/twiNBQ). Please share with the mailing
list by Monday 1 October at the latest whether there are any further
issues or edits that need to be discussed. Based on the feedback
received, the leadership team will decide whether or not to go ahead
with the meeting on 4 October. As a reminder, the objective is to
publish the Initial Report for public comment by 8 October at the
Best regards,
Emily, Joke and Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive
courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20181002/67af3ffa/attachment.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list