Hello Barrack, Thanks for your response, by your message you are saying you support going out of ICANN mission as well. Just curious, do you have specific example of outreach carried out by AtLarge that can said to not be within the scope of ICANN mission? Perhaps it's good to also note that by the message of the Board seem to imply that going out of ICANN mission May first require updating the mission itself and that may open WS1 v2.0. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Barrack Otieno" <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Seun,

Its a chicken and egg situation IMHO. We need to be certain about what is beyond ICANNs mission. I have noted in the past that some forms of outreach appeared to fall under this category hence i would be of a similar view point. On Sep 6, 2017 10:29 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> 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-Sept ember/000470.html

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" <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: <ccwg-auctionproceeds@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 <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@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 Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)