Parts extracted to keep things concise and my further comments. At 06/09/2017 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

On Sep 6, 2017 6:56 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

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.

SO: Hmm...we should not be very strict but at the same time we have to be mindful of being within ICANN mission. The funds for instance should not be used to digitize content of a museum library. I also don't think the idea of staying within ICANN mission implies we should put the funds into ICANN operational budget. There are many many activities/projects within ICANN mission that their budget doesn't cover and rolling back a one time amount into operational budget isn't a good idea for not-for-profit.

AG: My suggestion to put the funds into ICANN's operational budget was not serious, but I was trying to highlight that *IF* we were going to constrain too tightly, the net effect would be the same and a lot lest costly interms of this CCAG working for another year or so and then setting up or contracting for some operational entity to do the work. Even I would find it hard (or impossible) to justifying digitizing a library. Unless of course, it was the library associated with early IAN or related documentation. That is why we WILL have constraints and the applicants will have to make a strong connection to them.

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.

SO: IMO am not sure why you think IX probably falls outside of ICANN mission. Espcially if it comes to capacity building and providing relevant resources to get them more operational to ensure open Internet because some IX does host registry copies. Section IV of ICANN mission seem to allow that. That said, I don't think having ICANN build an IX from scratch for instance should be within scope.

AG: I wasn't saying *I* think that. But I have had the reaction from some that ANYTHING that smells of infrastructure is definitely off-limits. If everyone now playing in the sandbox thinks it is fine, I am delighted. I am not sure that providing the rather minimal capital cost of the equipment, when it is part of an overall program is off-limits, but it is certainly something that could be decided.

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.

SO: Okay so it seem we do not necessarily have a significantly different view on this after all.

AG: I don't think so. My concern is that there are some people in the group that REALLY want to constrain things, and while we may not go as liberal as I would prefer, I really want to make sure we do not end up in a position where we cannot make really good use of the funds. Alan

I hope this helps.

SO: Yes it does.

Regards

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.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/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" <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika@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@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@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@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org > Cc: Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org> steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org >, Icann-board ICANN <<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@apc.org>avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com >, Board Operations <<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>Board-Ops-Team@icann.org >, Sally Costerton <<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org> sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds@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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )