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

[Marika Konings]

Dear All,

Please note that the public comment forum is now live at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018-10-08-en.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:01 AM
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period.

Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today.

Erika

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct.  I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.

Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we
________________________________
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM
To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying
>>re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of
>>the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.
>
>I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for
>money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO
>asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.
>
>I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be
>inherently conflicted.
>
>R's,
>John

Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws
and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for
the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent
parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.

Alan

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto: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/20181008/e3b406b0/attachment.html>