[council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

Sat Oct 1 10:06:16 UTC 2016

Thanks Marika.  I suppose I should have said “the correct framework to develop the process.”  I stick by “windfall”, as ICANN didn’t earn these funds.  In any event, I am thankful that you are taking the suggestion back to the DT. 

Regards,

Paul

Paul D. McGrady, Jr.

policy at paulmcgrady.com

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 6:43 PM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>; 'James M. Bladel' <jbladel at godaddy.com>; 'GNSO Council List' <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: jrobinson at afilias.info
Subject: Re: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

Paul, just to clarify, the charter does not set out the ‘process to spend these windfalls’, it outlines the scope for the CCWG that is expected to develop the framework for disbursements of funds. Also, to provide a bit more background on the process and community deliberations that have lead up to this proposed charter:

March 2015: GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson wrote to SO/AC Chairs to take temperature on the desire for a drafting team to discuss the development of a CCWG

June 2015: ICANN53, in Buenos Aires: SO/AC Panel High Interest Session and Community Workshop Session

July - August 2015: Development of Discussion Paper Drafted to take into consideration pertinent issues discussed at ICANN53

September 2015: Discussion Paper is published for public comment

December 2015: Discussion Paper Comments Report published along with updated Discussion Paper

January - February 2016: Requests for nominations to Drafting Team for CCWG, Board Chair nominates Board Liaisons, First Call of Drafting Team/Feb

March – September 2016: Drafting Team work, including review of all the materials and input leading up to the DT, distribution of draft charter for review and discussion prior to ICANN56, community session during ICANN56, review of all comments received during ICANN56 as well as those submitted subsequently by email (see comment review tool at  <https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)> https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw), 

13 September 2016: Submission of proposed charter to ICANN SO/ACs with the request to identify any pertinent issues that would prevent SO/AC adoption 

Of course, I will take your suggestion for a public comment period back to the DT, but I also wanted to remind the Council that the DT has specifically requested input on whether there are any pertinent issues that would avoid adoption of the charter by SO/ACs to be able to address these prior to formally submitting the proposed charter to the ICANN SO/ACs for their consideration. The idea of the DT was to obtain this input by the end of September so it would be in a position to make any updates to the proposed charter, if needed, which would allow for formal submission of the proposed charter in time for consideration by the different SO/ACs at ICANN57. For your convenience, I’ve attached the proposed charter here again. 

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings

Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto: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> .

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> > on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com> >
Date: Friday 30 September 2016 at 14:47
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> >, 'GNSO Council List' <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> >
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info> >
Subject: RE: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

All,

Just to follow on from my comments yesterday, it is my personal belief (and not necessarily the view of the IPC, but not necessarily not the view either) that this Charter should be open to a real and robust public comment – not just to those with the time and resources to have traveled to Helsinki.  There is no rush to disburse these funds (correct?), so sending the message to the public that ICANN doesn’t want their opinion on the correct process to spend these windfalls, I believe, is an avoidable mistake.

Regards,

Paul

Paul D. McGrady, Jr.

policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com> 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>  [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:37 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> >
Subject: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

Councilors -

See message below, sent on behalf of the gTLD Auction Proceeds Charter Drafting Team.  Their Draft Charter for a proposed CCWG is attached, and they are requesting feedback by 30 September. If time allows, lets plan to add this as a discussion point for our next call (29 SEP).

Thank you,

J.

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 12:41 
Subject: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair:

Dear SO/AC Chairs,

On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_AR-5FAAw&d=DQMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=iAY_2l3SjGAHTqDmvf4-BRjt5u-4mMSRKLF4dIbyRyg&s=_1AnbhFDSNAN1ovGptiyqxnN6icRMnadePMqCwXlits&e=> https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw[community.icann.org] for DT members).

This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and deliberations, including careful review of input that was received as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_fgmbAw-29&d=DQMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=iAY_2l3SjGAHTqDmvf4-BRjt5u-4mMSRKLF4dIbyRyg&s=n69ktxIEQG7E4ISa1cn1gzCR6cTytVoUIG_OGXY9U3w&e=> https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)[community.icann.org] and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT would like to request you review the proposed charter with this careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent issues that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this charter. We would like to request you highlight such pertinent issues by 30 September 2016 at the latest, including an indication of when you anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs.

Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to receiving your feedback.

Best wishes,

Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161001/0e788de2/attachment.html>