[Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Comments period ?

[Marika Konings]

For your information, please see below. We’ll add this input to the comment review tool.

Best regards,

Marika

On 13/07/16 12:31, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:

Thanks Marika

Our main input is that the current scope is too widely defined.

The use of "not inconsistent" with ICANN's mission is a clear departure
from the original intent to do something "good for the Internet" aligned
with ICANN's principles ("support directly" was the original terms
used). Anything that doesn't hurt the Internet would be OK by this weak
requirement, such as growing corn with no water or developing clean
energy sources. Although there are good projects, they won't help the
Internet or the Web reach their full potential.

The drafting team has done a good job at describing what would not be OK
to fund from a procedural point of view (such as funding individuals,
lobbying groups, inconsistent with ICANN's tax rules, etc), but so far
has not clearly establish what should be the criteria the CCWG should
use to further develop the grant instrument itself.

We think that it should be made clear in the charter that
   - the funding will only go to Internet related projects, which are by 
nature technical, and not to anything marginally related to the Internet 
(everything is nowadays) and that doesn't hurt the Internet: it has to 
do good for the Internet, its shared infrastructure, it's users (as 
Internet users, not just as
regular citizen)
   - use of funding should be in support of the main goals of ICANN: to
improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the
Internet.
   - it should consider criteria of global benefits vs. local benefits
(e.g. is this funding going to help all Internet users or just a limited
population ?)
   - it should consider criteria of long terms benefits vs. short terms
results (hence the importance of funding infrastructure oriented things)
   - it should consider criteria of scaling effects: will a relatively
small funding (e.g. 1M USD over the 100 available) have rippling
benefits saving Internet users and the community much more than that in
the end ?
   - it should consider additional criteria such as difficulty to be
funded by usual granters (such as gov, large foundations).

Also, the Internet being implemented as a stack of layers of
technologies:
    - physical layer (e.g. optic cable, wifi, dsl),
    - logical/software (ip, dns, http, etc),
    - application (search, social platform, content),
it would be useful for someone, the drafting team, or the CCWG, to
explore the funding priorities along those lines. We think the focus
should be on the middleware layers: from managing IP network, DNS, to
improving the http/Web layers since these are the closest technologies
in support of the Internet as seen by ICANN. Funding physicial layers
work for instance might very well be used by a competitor network to IP,
and funding pure content runs the same risks (of attracting users to
another network than IP).

Take care.

Daniel Dardailler
Director of International Relations
W3C



On 2016-07-11 15:01, Marika Konings wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> There is no official comment period, but the DT invited those that
> were in attendance either in person or remotely during the session in
> Helsinki to provide their contributions via email if they did not have
> an opportunity to speak up during the session. The next meeting of the
> DT is scheduled for coming Thursday during which they will start
> reviewing the input received as part of the Helsinki session so
> ideally any comments you have are received prior to Thursday (you can
> send your comments to me and I will forward them to the drafting
> team). The latest version of the charter can be found here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 11/07/16 14:32, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Marika
> 
> I'd like to know where I can find the latest charter for the CCWG on
> Auctions, and what is your deadline for acccepting comments.
> 
> 
> Thanks.