[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Google doc to review examples
Daniel Dardailler
danield at w3.org
Thu Sep 14 18:09:36 UTC 2017
Hello Marika
I think that there is a duplicate in the table, look for "25 women and
25 men "
I don't see an example related to funding open Web standard development,
just one for the IETF endowment, which is different. Can I add it to the
table ? Or do you want some text ?
On 2017-09-12 11:44, Marika Konings wrote:
> In relation to 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”), please see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit?usp=sharing
> [1] and add your comments / suggestions to the document. As explained
> in the document, the objective is to review and analyze the examples
> that have been provided to date in relation to new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds allocation. As ultimately allocation needs to occur
> consistent with ICANN’s mission as well as the objectives set by the
> CCWG, you are requested to indicate for each of these examples with
> which part of ICANN’s mission it is considered consistent as well as
> which part of the proposed objectives. You may also indicate if you do
> not consider the proposed example consistent with either ICANN’s
> mission and/or the objectives.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika
> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> DATE: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 17:45
> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's
> meeting
>
> 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 [2]._
>
> _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/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-L4/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]
> [3])
>
> 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 _
>
> _ _
>
> _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
>
> _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive
> courses[learn.icann.org] [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer
> pages[gnso.icann.org] [5]. _
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit?usp=sharing
> [2]
> 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=
> [3]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-2DL4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=Dkxpx-9v_lmST8dT4BsCgZ4DzZdNNXbllo3TkQMGExM&e=
> [4]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=RS0a2YtoddIgSmVY4K6158dTrh2dPpm2gvaqgwoPpk4&e=
> [5]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=yN-lw6GEHmh5ZttIHoJnt0JXK2kCT-jlQlu_lTex8c4&e=
> _______________________________________________
> 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