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

Robert Guerra rguerra at privaterra.org
Tue Oct 9 13:02:49 UTC 2018



Personally, I’ll be interested in hearing what the community comments 
are related to Section 4.1 and 4.2.



Robert Guerra
Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

On 8 Oct 2018, at 18:11, Marika Konings wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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