[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - Google doc to review examples

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Fri Sep 15 08:29:57 UTC 2017

Thanks, Daniel. I’ve added the language you provided separately as example #15 and removed the duplicate language. 

Best regards,


On 9/14/17, 20:10, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:

    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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g-5F3kS0JUSSC-5FtSk_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2VnrNlTNl5ADO0nGY_dnVZci4K6c33BVDFyih7kwq-E&s=PAC-fOpGylNN9V25AbH9txjTH27hdtXgJ3UUvqOuGsE&e= 
    > [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
    > _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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2VnrNlTNl5ADO0nGY_dnVZci4K6c33BVDFyih7kwq-E&s=zWj8QLAoHXSVMgeqgShHTqVIlvssyOAbP4VkJNqpfrw&e=  [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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-2DL4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-5Bdocs.google.com-5D&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2VnrNlTNl5ADO0nGY_dnVZci4K6c33BVDFyih7kwq-E&s=phq_EK_ev5Frz8gSsIELyDJnIOljpKSWal3ACOnEOTM&e= 
    > [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)._
    > _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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g-5F3kS0JUSSC-5FtSk_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2VnrNlTNl5ADO0nGY_dnVZci4K6c33BVDFyih7kwq-E&s=PAC-fOpGylNN9V25AbH9txjTH27hdtXgJ3UUvqOuGsE&e= 
    > [2]
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&amp;r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&amp;m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&amp;s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&amp;e=
    > [3]
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-2DL4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&amp;r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&amp;m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&amp;s=Dkxpx-9v_lmST8dT4BsCgZ4DzZdNNXbllo3TkQMGExM&amp;e=
    > [4]
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&amp;r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&amp;m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&amp;s=RS0a2YtoddIgSmVY4K6158dTrh2dPpm2gvaqgwoPpk4&amp;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&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&amp;r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&amp;m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&amp;s=yN-lw6GEHmh5ZttIHoJnt0JXK2kCT-jlQlu_lTex8c4&amp;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