September 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 4, 2017

Oct. 4, 2017

Given that this issue (the way communities were evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community? I would like to flag this -- the treatment of communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is worth the effort of the community to draft a comment, using the work of this Review and the existing community efforts to engage in new rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC policy on the issue. Once created, this policy can/should take form of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard. In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent practice of being distracted by the trivial while major issues of concern -- that are more complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this issue -- the treatment of communities -- become one of the primary concerns of At-Large should ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, .kids among them -- as clear communities that were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) out of the ability to apply. The problem with community evaluation also completely rendered useless the Applicant Support Program that At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round. I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't do it alone. There must be broader desire within the community for this than one person, should this issue be given the weight of authority that IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can. - Evan On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > > [image: CANN][icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-01-en[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> > ------------------------------ > ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation > Process > > LOS ANGELES – 1 September 2017 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers (ICANN) today issued an update[newgtlds.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> > on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process. > > Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string contention, > described in full detail in section 4.2 of the Applicant Guidebook > (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>. > The evaluation determines if the community based application qualifies to > earn priority and eliminate all non-community applicants in the contention > set as well as any other non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the > application is evaluated against the following four criteria: Community > Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration > Policies, and Community Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by the > Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU was selected for this role > because it offers premier business intelligence services, providing > political, economic, and public policy analysis to businesses, governments, > and organizations across the globe. > > At various times in the implementation of the New gTLD Program, the ICANN > Board has considered aspects of CPE process, including certain concerns > that some applicants have raised regarding the process. On 17 September > 2016[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, > the ICANN Board directed the President and CEO, or his designees, to > undertake a review of the process by which ICANN has interacted with the > CPE provider. In his letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned > parties[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> > [PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, > provided additional information about the scope and status of the review. > Below is additional information about the review, as well as the current > status of the CPE process review. On 2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>, > the ICANN organization published an update on the Review. > > Below is the current status of the Review since the last update. > Current Status of the Review > > The 2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> > made clear that the Review is being conducted in two parallel tracks by FTI > Consulting Inc.’s (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&…> > Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) and Technology Practice. The > work of the first track, which focuses on gathering information and > materials from the ICANN organization, has been completed. The work of the > second track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the > CPE provider, is still ongoing. The interview process of the CPE provider > personnel that had involvement in CPEs has been completed. FTI is also > working with the CPE provider to obtain the reference materials for the > evaluations that are the subject of pending Reconsideration > Requests[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. > The CPE provider has been producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is > currently evaluating whether the CPE provider’s production is complete. > Once the underlying information and data collection is complete, FTI > anticipates that it will be able to inform ICANN of its findings within two > weeks. > > Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN organization have received > numerous inquiries for documentation and information about the Review. > These inquiries have been and will continue to be addressed through ICANN’s > Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are published on the > DIDP page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/ > transparency-en[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> > . > > The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to conclude this Review and > proceed with the process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to concluding > the Review and proceeding as appropriate. > > For more information about the CPE process, please visit > https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> > . > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

4 3

Open Public Comment Proceedings
by Ariel Liang Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear ALAC Members, This is a friendly reminder on the currently open public comment proceedings that no one has volunteered to work on: Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021–2023<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69278806> Proposed Changes to the NCUC Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Pro…> Proposed Renewal of .MUSEUM Sponsored Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Pro…> If you wish to volunteer to review any of these proceedings and advise whether the ALAC should comment or not, please be so kind to let me know. Have a great weekend! Thank you, Ariel

9 15

Re: [ALAC] Call for Volunteers: Co-Leader for WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

I am pleased to report that the ALAC has selected Christopher Wilkinson to be the ALAC-Appointed Co-Leasder of the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group WT5 on geonames at the top level. Alan At 23/08/2017 12:36 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is >establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) which will focus exclusively >on geographic names at the top-level. This has been a very >contentious issue with a wide variety of difficult-to-reconcile >positions, but one that must be resolved prior to any future new >gTLD availability. > >In order to promote broad participation from across the community, >the WG is seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5 with >co-leaders from the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. > >Past efforts in this area have included a ccNSO Study Group and a >Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of country names as >Top Level Domains (TLDs). (See >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm and >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm.) > >We are looking for a person who is well acquainted with the multiple >views on the subject within ICANN, has knowledge of and preferably >experience in the past efforts, and who can work closely with the >ALAC and an At-Large WG supporting the effort. > >We note that to a large extent, the person serving in this capacity >is a facilitator for the Work Track and not there to put forward >their personal positions. > >Interested candidates should send an Expression of Interest >detailing their experience and willingness to serve in all aspects >of this role to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org no later than 23:59 UTC on >Monday, 28 August 2017. > >The ALAC will also be looking for volunteers to participate in the >WT5 once it is established, but this Call for Volunteers is >exclusively for the position of Co-Leader. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC

10 9

ICANN 60 - ALAC - Board meeting
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2017

Sept. 17, 2017

We have been confirmed for a 90 minute meeting (previusly it has been 60). Please add suggestions on topics to be discussed - https://community.icann.org/x/0B8hB. Alan

1 0

Meeting PTI's CSC in Abu Dhabi
by Mohamed El Bashir Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

Dear Alan, ALAC Would ALAC be interested to meet with the Public Technical Identifiers “PTI” Customers Standing Committee “CSC” in Abu Dhabi? Please also be informed that the CSC will conduct a public session on Sunday, 29 October, block 3 (13:30-15:00). Thanks Kind Regards, Mohamed

2 2

Call for Volunteers ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

The current Liaison to the ccNSO, Maureen Hilyard, is stepping down and the ALAC is soliciting volunteers as possible replacements. Among the characteristics to be considered will be: - Familiarity with ccTLDs from an operations, management or overseeing aspect; - Prior participation in the ccNSO; - Knowledge of the ALAC and the ability to consult with and speak on its behalf; - Maturity, good judgement and diplomacy. Process to be followed: - from among the volunteers, one or more will be selected by Maureen, possibly in conjunction with the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (AASC). - the volunteer(s) selected will work with Maureen over the coming months both to evaluate the volunteer(s) suitability for the position. ccNSO leadership will also be consulted on the ultimate selection. - In consultation with ALAC Leadership, a recommendation will be made to the consideration of the ALAC. This process is expected to take several months at the least. An attempt will be made to ensure that candidates selected for consideration will be funded to attend one or more ICANN meetings prior to their confirmation as Liaison. Expressions of Interest should describe the candidate's knowledge, skills and experience in relation to the characteristics listed above. Expressions of Interest should be submitted to At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> no later than 23:59 on Monday, 18 September 2017. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

Call for Volunteers ALAC Liaison to the SSAC
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

The current Liaison to the SSAC, Julie Hammer, is stepping down and the ALAC is soliciting volunteers as possible replacements. The ALAC Liaison to the SSAC is a full SSAC member and as such, the ALAC will only suggest possible candidates to the SSAC, subject to their decision to admit the person in accordance with their own rules and processes. Among the characteristics to be considered by the ALAC in considering possible volunteers are: - Technical knowledge of the Internet and DNS; - Knowledge of and prior experience with security and stability issues. - Knowledge of the ALAC and the ability to consult with and speak on its behalf; - Maturity, good judgement and diplomacy. - Willingness to act as the ALAC Liaison in addition to SSAC internal responsibilities Prospective volunteers are encouraged to review: - SSAC overview at <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac. - SSAC Introduction pointed to in above page. - SSAC Operational Procedures pointed to in above page, with a specific focus on section 2.3 on New Member Selection. - SSAC Reports at <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents Process to be followed: - from among the volunteers, one preferred candidate will be selected by the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (AASC) with the assistance of Julie, subject to ratification by the ALAC. Alternate candidates may also be selected. An interview may be included as part of the selection process. - The SSAC will be informed of the selection and the preferred candidates will formally apply to the SSAC as per SSAC operational procedures. - If the SSAC accepts the preferred candidate, that person will be designated the ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. - If the SSAC does not accept the preferred candidate, either a backup candidate may be presented to the ALAC for ratification and will formally apply to the SSAC as per SSAC operational procedures, or the call for volunteers may be reopened. As the process within SSAC is quite a substantial one and must be scheduled after other applications already in process, the date by which the appointment will be concluded cannot be determined, but it is hoped that the entire process will be completed before the end of 2017. Expressions of Interest addressing the characteristics above should be submitted to At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> no later than 23:59 on Tuesday, 26 September 2017. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Why aren't more At-Largers involved in PDPs? (was: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Evan, there is a lot of truth in what you say (although I am far less sure that your 3-part formula is the answer). But I return to the original question of Community gTLD Applications. If this is an important issue to us (and it does seem to be), how can we get more involvement in the issue so the outcomes have a higher chance of meeting what we believe is needed? Alan At 07/09/2017 02:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 6 September 2017 at 23:43, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >*IF* this matter is really important, it is >problematic that so few people are participating in the PDP. > > >âOf course it is problematic. It is also >completely predictable and understandable and >always has been; it is has been a built-in ICANN >process design to handicap our efforts. > >At-Large, by definition, is here to represent >the interests of end-users. Its membership does >not have domain buying or selling as primary >livelihoods (if they are they really ought not >to be here as their interests are being >represented elsewhere in the ICANN ecosystem). >As a result, most participants here have day >jobs and Other Things To Do. To them, Internet >governance is a sideline, an interest, maybe >even a passion. But they are at a MASSIVE >disadvantage compared to those for whom ICANN >awareness and manipulation is a job. ICANN >processes are heavily biased in favour of those >who commit their lives, and against the typical >ALS or individual member. This is fine for the >paid staff, consultants and academics for whom >involvement in ICANN and Internet governance >pays their rent. The rest of us, not so good. > >Look at the time consumption of even the most >trivial PDP. High-level issues are shunted aside >while trivial details and definitions consume >person-hours by the hundreds. A WG that Alan and >I now attend regarding the process for >allocating ICANN auction funds has been spending >weeks on the definition of "what is an open >Internet". In my decades of public service, >ICANN's rate of >accomplishment-per-volunteer-hour is massively >less than anything else I have done in my life. > >So it's no wonder At-Large participation in WGs >is so rare. The number of people able to cope >with the time commitment, the many other >barriers (no language interpretation!!), small >groups of aggressive speakers who dominate the >debates and shut down dissent through derision >and legalese. WGs usually meet at ICANN >meetings, putting those who don't travel to them >at a disadvantage. It can easily be >overwhelming, especially when it so often leads >to our not being heard anyway unless we agree with the pack. > >Let's please be honest. At any given time, the >number of people in At-Large who can cope with >all this, and put in the heroic levels of >commitment of folks like Alan, usually requires >only one hand to count. Most others have three >choices when a PDP (or similar WG) offer arises: > * Have a substantially diminished personal > life for the duration of the PDP to do it > right, in a way that may well impact their actual income-producing work > * Be involved in the PDP at a reduced rate, > but then eventually get lost by falling behind > * Sit it out, and get involved instead in > outreach or infrastructure (still challenging, > but not on the scale -- or with the hostility -- of the policy work) >Compounding the problem is that PDPs are >commissioned by the GNSO with few exceptions, >and if the WG is not designated as cross >community (rare), At-Large's ability to frame >the topics and counter the agenda of a >determined and unified domain industry is ... weak. > >There are some steps that may be taken to improve the situation: > * Dedicate At-Large staff to policy > development support to assist those At-Large people who choose to get involved > * Deal with responses at a higher level so > that our people can make informed input without > having to be involved in every step of the inevitable minutiae > * Create an annual strategic plan for policy > to highlight the areas of concern, and stick > faithfully to only participate in, and respond > to, process that impact those areas >Without these steps (and maybe even with them) >our volunteer resources simply are not able to >match the involvement and relentlessness of the domain industry communities. > >The answer is not to scare off newcomers or burn >out veterans. Rather, At-Large must recognize >the limitations with which we must work in >policy development, and develop creative ways >within the ICANN bylaws to make our voice most >effective given who we are and what we are able to do. > >Cheers,. > >- Evan

3 2

Why aren't more At-Largers involved in PDPs? (was: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

On 6 September 2017 at 23:43, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > *IF* this matter is really important, it is problematic that so few people > are participating in the PDP. > Of course it is problematic. It is also completely predictable and understandable and always has been; it is has been a built-in ICANN process design to handicap our efforts. At-Large, by definition, is here to represent the interests of end-users. Its membership does not have domain buying or selling as primary livelihoods (if they are they really ought not to be here as their interests are being represented elsewhere in the ICANN ecosystem). As a result, most participants here have day jobs and Other Things To Do. To them, Internet governance is a sideline, an interest, maybe even a passion. But they are at a MASSIVE disadvantage compared to those for whom ICANN awareness and manipulation is a job. ICANN processes are heavily biased in favour of those who commit their lives, and against the typical ALS or individual member. This is fine for the paid staff, consultants and academics for whom involvement in ICANN and Internet governance pays their rent. The rest of us, not so good. Look at the time consumption of even the most trivial PDP. High-level issues are shunted aside while trivial details and definitions consume person-hours by the hundreds. A WG that Alan and I now attend regarding the process for allocating ICANN auction funds has been spending weeks on the definition of "what is an open Internet". In my decades of public service, ICANN's rate of accomplishment-per-volunteer-hour is massively less than anything else I have done in my life. So it's no wonder At-Large participation in WGs is so rare. The number of people able to cope with the time commitment, the many other barriers (no language interpretation!!), small groups of aggressive speakers who dominate the debates and shut down dissent through derision and legalese. WGs usually meet at ICANN meetings, putting those who don't travel to them at a disadvantage. It can easily be overwhelming, especially when it so often leads to our not being heard anyway unless we agree with the pack. Let's please be honest. At any given time, the number of people in At-Large who can cope with all this, and put in the heroic levels of commitment of folks like Alan, usually requires only one hand to count. Most others have three choices when a PDP (or similar WG) offer arises: - Have a substantially diminished personal life for the duration of the PDP to do it right, in a way that may well impact their actual income-producing work - Be involved in the PDP at a reduced rate, but then eventually get lost by falling behind - Sit it out, and get involved instead in outreach or infrastructure (still challenging, but not on the scale -- or with the hostility -- of the policy work) Compounding the problem is that PDPs are commissioned by the GNSO with few exceptions, and if the WG is not designated as cross community (rare), At-Large's ability to frame the topics and counter the agenda of a determined and unified domain industry is ... weak. There are some steps that may be taken to improve the situation: - Dedicate At-Large staff to policy development support to assist those At-Large people who choose to get involved - Deal with responses at a higher level so that our people can make informed input without having to be involved in every step of the inevitable minutiae - Create an annual strategic plan for policy to highlight the areas of concern, and stick faithfully to only participate in, and respond to, process that impact those areas Without these steps (and maybe even with them) our volunteer resources simply are not able to match the involvement and relentlessness of the domain industry communities. The answer is not to scare off newcomers or burn out veterans. Rather, At-Large must recognize the limitations with which we must work in policy development, and develop creative ways within the ICANN bylaws to make our voice most effective given who we are and what we are able to do. Cheers,. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Going beyond ICANN mission? (Was Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Thanks for raising this Seun. I am not sure that characterizing my position as wanting to go beyond ICANN's mission" is quite accurate. The issue of the mission (in regard to the auction funds) comes out of a dual need: a) to "support" ICANN's Mission and Core values, and b) to protect ICANN's non-profit status. Since the original auction fund was conceived, we of course have significantly altered the words describing ICANN's mission and core values. That may be for the good or bad depending on how you view things, but it is unlikely that we will roll that change back and equally unlikely that the entire community could be convinced to alter the Bylaws explicitly for wider use of the auction funds. So we are constrained. But I think it is really important that we use the mission and core values as a constraint, and not the driving objective. We are talking about well over #200,000,000 (exactly how much will depend on how long the funds last, because there will be growth along the way). This is a one time opportunity to do some real good, and I would like to help ensure that we have as much flexibility as absolutely possible. Among the original uses that were described in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook was: "include formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community". My hope is that we can get as close to that as possible, and interpret the various parts of the mission and core values to give us the utmost possible flexibility. We do not want to endanger ICANN, but we also do not want to squander the money. If we ONLY do things that are strictly within ICANN's scope in how it uses its operational funds, then we may as well just roll the money into the ICANN operational budget. We need to be innovative. My classic example is Internet Exchange Points. They are not what I would consider something that is strictly within ICANN's mission. But they are very important to parts of our community including ISPs and the RIRs (the second N in ICANN). And they even (typically) require Autonomous System Numbers, one of the unique identifiers that we are here for. And they create great benefit for the "greater Internet community", and perhaps even more important, they help strenghten the relatively weak infrastructure in places not necessarily well served by the Internet. More specifically, I want the CCWG to leave the door as wide open as possible while meeting the Board's concerns, to allow project requesters to be innovative in creating viable links from their projects to the constraints that we must meet. I hope this helps. Alan At 06/09/2017 03:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >There has been ongoing discussion in reaction to the attached letter >from the Board. The discussion has been around using the auction >funds for purpose beyond the ICANN mission. I was of the opinion >that her mission though has a scope was broad enough to ensure the >funds have a global reach as much as possible. >However I have also noticed some members (notably Alan) have the >view that the funds should be used beyond the ICANN mission scope. >While it's not important that we share same opinion I also don't >want to take lightly veterans view on this matter, perhaps am >missing something :-) > >Specifically, is there a disadvantage for At-Large if the auction >funds is used within ICANN mission that makes it so important for us >to support acting outside of the ICANN mission? > >The specific thread can be followed here: ><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht…>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht… > >I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation. > >Regards >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Erika Mann" <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com> >Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM >Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP >To: <<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >Cc: > >Dear All - > >herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. > >We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG >AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will >discuss the Board letter then for the first time. > >Best, >Erika > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Steve Crocker ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >To: Erika Mann <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com>, >Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika >Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Cc: Steve Crocker ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, >Marika Konings ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org>, >Icann-board ICANN ><<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@apc.org>avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" ><<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board >Operations ><<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally >Costerton ><<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, >Samantha Eisner ><<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, >Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>lauren.allison(a)icann.org> > > >Dear Erika and Ching, > >Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the >Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) >in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. > >On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in >our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. >Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a >letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. > >Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. > >Steve > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list ><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kAfTkegi2gCP9wBV7y1t2Pta3rBAyLtX29O/VKLY/8KH0/vdhnduKFRutXIrhL4AKhSA2l4FX5kvlUOCsuRWx8T5WWy7kRQENXkS34+CJnaUyZfMIpCArNreF3W32RNR >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

3 2