CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All, We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group. The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations. In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area. In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts? If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly. Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Agreed. demi On 22/09/2016 12:35, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear All,
We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group.
The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions:
- Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached)
- Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations.
In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area.
In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts?
If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly.
Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the cc’s have a lot to add to this process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All, We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group. The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations. In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area. In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts? If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly. Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina
I agree with Becky. I understand that there could be workload issues for ccTLDs that would mitigate against participating but I do think it is important to remember that an ICANN wide Foundation or or Fund is a possible/likely outcome and ccTLD input into the scope of such an entity would be extremely valuable. Happy to go into more detail of that’s helpful. Cheers, Chris
On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:52, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the cc’s have a lot to add to this process.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All,
We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group.
The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations.
In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area.
In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts?
If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly.
Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
As far as I know, some ccTLDs have already shared their experience and I am sure will gladly do so in the future. Becky, Chris, I am not sure I understood your remarks do you think there is a need to reconsider the Council decision and participate in the WG as a chartering organisation? Or, according to initial plan, informing and encouraging individual ccTLDs to share their experience would suffice? Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina From: Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk> Date: Thursday 22 September 2016 19:39 To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) I agree with Becky. I understand that there could be workload issues for ccTLDs that would mitigate against participating but I do think it is important to remember that an ICANN wide Foundation or or Fund is a possible/likely outcome and ccTLD input into the scope of such an entity would be extremely valuable. Happy to go into more detail of that¹s helpful. Cheers, Chris
On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:52, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the cc¹s have a lot to add to this process.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All,
We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group.
The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations.
In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area.
In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts?
If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly.
Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
Hi Katrina, In an ideal word I think it would be good for the ccTLDs to be a chartering organisation so that we can be involved in the development of and ‘sign off’ on something that is likely to be a significant development in ICANN. I think being a part ‘owner’ of the mechanism or entity that results from the this ccwg would be of benefit to ccTLDs in the future. Cheers, Chris
On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:33, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
As far as I know, some ccTLDs have already shared their experience and I am sure will gladly do so in the future.
Becky, Chris, I am not sure I understood your remarks – do you think there is a need to reconsider the Council decision and participate in the WG as a chartering organisation? Or, according to initial plan, informing and encouraging individual ccTLDs to share their experience would suffice?
Thanks!
Regards,
]{atrina
From: Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk <mailto:chris@disspain.uk>> Date: Thursday 22 September 2016 19:39 To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
I agree with Becky. I understand that there could be workload issues for ccTLDs that would mitigate against participating but I do think it is important to remember that an ICANN wide Foundation or or Fund is a possible/likely outcome and ccTLD input into the scope of such an entity would be extremely valuable.
Happy to go into more detail of that’s helpful.
Cheers,
Chris
On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:52, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote:
I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the cc’s have a lot to add to this process.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All,
We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group.
The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations.
In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area.
In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts?
If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly.
Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
+1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk>> Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Hi Katrina, In an ideal word I think it would be good for the ccTLDs to be a chartering organisation so that we can be involved in the development of and ‘sign off’ on something that is likely to be a significant development in ICANN. I think being a part ‘owner’ of the mechanism or entity that results from the this ccwg would be of benefit to ccTLDs in the future. Cheers, Chris On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:33, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: As far as I know, some ccTLDs have already shared their experience and I am sure will gladly do so in the future. Becky, Chris, I am not sure I understood your remarks – do you think there is a need to reconsider the Council decision and participate in the WG as a chartering organisation? Or, according to initial plan, informing and encouraging individual ccTLDs to share their experience would suffice? Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina From: Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk>> Date: Thursday 22 September 2016 19:39 To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) I agree with Becky. I understand that there could be workload issues for ccTLDs that would mitigate against participating but I do think it is important to remember that an ICANN wide Foundation or or Fund is a possible/likely outcome and ccTLD input into the scope of such an entity would be extremely valuable. Happy to go into more detail of that’s helpful. Cheers, Chris On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:52, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the cc’s have a lot to add to this process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All, We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group. The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations. In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area. In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts? If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly. Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina
agreed, best regard Souleymane 2016-09-22 15:35 GMT+00:00 Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>:
Dear All,
We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group.
The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions:
- Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached)
- Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the chartering organizations.
In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience in this area.
In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in 2015. Any other thoughts?
If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and inform the co-chairs accordingly.
Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course of action by Monday.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
participants (5)
-
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
Demi Getschko -
Katrina Sataki -
Souleymane Oumtanaga