[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sat Oct 6 19:17:15 UTC 2018

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Elliot Noss wrote:

> a fine approach in my opinion.

Under the time constraints it seems like the only plausible option.

We can figure out later if there's any way that could work without 
impossible conflict of interest problems.


>> On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All -
>>> I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
>>> The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
>>> We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
>>> I therefore recommend the following approach:
>>> We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list