[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's meeting
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Sep 7 17:55:23 UTC 2017
Hello,
Thanks for sharing the notes, apologies again for missing the call. Just a
quick note on the objectives.
1. I like the fact that it's quite short and encompassing at the same time.
2. It seem to me that bullet point 2 can be comfortably accommodated in
bullet point 1.
3. Since we already have an overall qualifier that the objectives will be
within ICANN mission/core (which I support) I think we don't need to really
spend significant time on get a consensus definition of "Open Internet". If
we must then I suggest we strive to make it as brief, clear and ecompassing
as the objective itself.
Regards
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Sep 7, 2017 4:45 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG Auction
> Proceeds meeting. For those of you that were not able to attend the
> meeting, please take particular note of action item #1.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Notes - CCWG AP Meeting - 7 September 2017*
>
>
>
> *These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the
> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript
> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and
> are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>.*
>
>
>
> *1. Roll Call*
>
> - Attendance will be taken from AC room
> - Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and
> mute your microphones when not speaking
>
>
>
> *2. Welcome / DOI*
>
> - Note that letter from the Board is on the agenda for today's meeting
> - it already drew some discussion on the list, also from the perspective of
> DOI.
>
>
>
> *3. Review redrafted objectives and examples*
>
> i. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives
>
>
>
> - Note latest draft that has been circulated. Is this now at a stage
> where people feel comfortable to preliminary agreeing to this version,
> noting that there are still some open items that need to be addressed and
> may impact the final wording.
> - Third item could be merged into first one so it would read 'Benefit
> the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that
> support the Internet's unique identifier systems'. Agreement to update this
> bullet accordingly. Some wordsmithing may need to be done later, but intent
> is clear.
> - Preliminary agreement by those on the call on the following proposed
> objectives:
> - Specific objectives of new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation
> are:
> - 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and
> structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems';
> - Benefit structures or projects that directly support the
> Internet's unique identifier systems;
> - Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, and;
> - Benefit the Open Internet. [Note, the definition of Open
> Internet is subject to a separate conversation]
>
> New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner
> consistent with ICANN’s mission.
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: CCWG to review proposed objectives for new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds fund allocation that achieved preliminary agreement by those on
> the call (see above). If there are any concerns or objections,
> members/participants are encouraged to share these with the mailing list as
> soon as possible.
>
>
>
> *Action item #2*: Staff to create list of preliminary agreements to which
> this agreement and previous one will be added.
>
>
>
> ii. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’
>
>
>
> - See latest draft circulated on mailing list just prior to this
> meeting which aims to bring together the different versions and comments
> that have been received to date.
> - Is 'Open Internet' too identified with Net Neutrality? Consider a
> possible alternative wording such as Open and Interoperable Internet or
> open interoperable Internet. Not create an impression that this group is
> trying to define a term which is already being used in other contexts. Also
> make clear that it concerns a network of networks. Not about defining Open
> Internet but how fund allocation might fit into the broader scope of Open
> Internet. But some may just ignore this nuance so need to consider whether
> to use different terminology.
> - Some concerns expressed about some of the bullet points - CCWG to
> consider whether all of these belong here. Also consider making the
> statements more high level and moving some of the examples to a different
> section / annex. Providing examples may also trigger proposals that are
> focused on those specific examples so may not be advisable. Examples may be
> helpful for evaluators though - could consider not publishing the examples
> with call for proposals but as guidance for evaluators or as part of an FAQ
> for possible applicants? This discussion may be premature as materials for
> applicants and/or evaluators are for a later stage. Focus on examples here
> is to ensure that there is a common understanding on what the focus and
> objectives of fund allocation is.
> - While this group is focused on gTLDs, it should be recognized that
> ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perhaps this
> could become a neutral statement about the importance of an online presence
> and providing information about all kinds of TLDs?
> - Even though infrastructure is related to ICANN's mission it is not
> part of ICANN's mission so it is not clear that auction proceeds could be
> used appropriately on infrastructure. As such, it may not be appropriate to
> include reference to items that are not considered within scope of ICANN's
> mission. The funds shouldn't go to technology that are completely
> independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc., since this funding could
> be used against ICANN in the end, to create e.g. another logical addressing
> system, names and numbers. Need to look further into the question of
> whether infrastructure is considered consistent with ICANN's mission or
> not.
> - If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards
> may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than strictly
> 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the tax-authorities for an
> 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same in the USA.? There are some
> proactive processes available through the IRS though they may not be
> binding opinions. It is not just about the IRS but there is also the
> broader ICANN community. If there is not agreement amongst the Board and/or
> community whether something is within ICANN's mission, it could result in
> an accusation of violation of the Bylaws so there would need to be
> agreement amongst community and Board about what is within ICANN's mission.
> Risk of expanding mission statement through work of this group which may
> not be welcomed by all.
> - There is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to
> mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds
>
>
>
> *Action item #3*: Staff to circulate google doc link to the mailing list.
> (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0B
> QTth39DitIW-L4/edit?usp=sharing)
>
> *Action item #4*: CCWG to review Open Internet Definition as available on
> the google doc link and suggest updates/changes for CCWG consideration
>
> *Action item #5*: Sam Einsner to review language and provide feedback on
> whether there are any concerns from an ICANN Org perspective
>
>
>
> iii. Review examples
>
> - Add examples that were circulated to the list by Tony.
>
>
>
> *Action item #6*: Staff to create google doc with all examples received
> to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of those examples is
> consistent with the proposed objectives as well as ICANN's mission.
>
>
>
> *4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next steps*
>
>
>
> - See Board response received on 1 September.
> - Now for CCWG to consider response, if any, to the letter as well as
> how feedback is expected to be addressed as part of the deliberations.
> - Re. DOI - importance of being open and transparent in all parts of
> the deliberations. May require further statement / clarification.
> - Main issue for Board is concern about perception. CCWG needs to be
> transparent about any/all decisions. CCWG to consider to clearly state if
> they have a certain interest in the outcome when stating certain positions
> (for example, if you or your organisation is interested/planning to apply
> for funding to support infrastructure projects, make sure to make that
> clear when advocating to add infrastructure as an objective).
> - May be helpful to have a standard / regular legal briefing on COI
> and what constitutes a COI?
> - Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests.
> Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a
> mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of the
> content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not sufficient, it
> only allows to take the next step when it is needed. This is part of the
> rationale of the recommendation that the Board made to this working group
> to establish a mechanism to deal with identified conflict of interest.
> - Consider further during next meeting.
>
>
>
> *Action item #7*: CCWG to review their respective SOI/DOIs and make sure
> that these are up to date.
>
>
>
> *5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the different
> options that have been discussed in relation to charter question #7 –
> should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and evaluation of
> proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, within ICANN;
> externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work;
> externally - working with already existing entities)*
>
> - Xavier and Sam are working on a presentation which would outline the
> different options (internal / external).
>
>
>
> *6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 September at 14.00
> UTC).*
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <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 Newcomer pages
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>. *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> 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/20170907/dc36a6d2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list