[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input needed - review of examples - deadline 15 October

[Daniel Dardailler]

Hello Marika, all

Looking at the examples table, and remembering the discussions at our 
last call wrt adding more columns, I wanted to suggest the following 
additional criteria (which I wrote a while ago before we started the 
CCWG). They are somehow different than the ones we already have 
indirectly included in the second column (identifier related, capacity 
building, open Internet).

- global vs. local benefits
   (e.g. is this funding going to help all Internet users or just a 
limited population ?)
- long-term vs. short-term results
   (e.g. infrastructure oriented vs. event oriented)
- scaling effect of deliverables
   (e.g. ratio of fund granted over expected end-users benefits/saving)
- difficulty to get funded by other grant agencies
   (e.g. by government programs, large foundations).


I'd be in favor of extending the current table with those criteria and 
also present the 3 pieces of the second column, so that examples are 
easier to evaluate.

Regarding the Open Internet definition, at
  
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-L4/edit

I'm not sure what is the status of this page. It's still pretty drafty, 
with typos, duplicates, etc.

Is someone in charge of cleaning it or am I not looking at the right one 
?





On 2017-09-26 00:13, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> As per action item #1 of our last meeting, please find attached the
> latest Word version of the assessment of examples of fund allocation
> document. As noted 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. You also have the
> ability to add examples currently not covered to the table. To
> facilitate your review, ICANN’s mission as well as the CCWG proposed
> objectives are listed with reference numbers that you can use to fill
> out the table. Note that ‘notes/comments’ column can be used for
> any additional input you wish to provide.
> 
> You can include your feedback in the attached document or use the
> google doc version
> (_https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit_).
> The deadline for input is 15 October.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika_ _
> 
> _ _
> 
> _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 [1]
> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
> [2]
> 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