FW: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All, Please find an email from Leonid below – his views on the discussion around Auction Proceeds. On a separate note, Leonid indicated “as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list...” which should not be the case. May I ask the Secretariat to check if this is true and, if it is indeed, to correct whatever went wrong as all our observers and liaisons should be able to share their views on the ccNSO Council mailing list. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Leonid Todorov [mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:47 AM To: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; chris@disspain.uk Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All- as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list, I cannot help but signal some precaution about the idea you support and suggest some reasons why: 1) from the USSR times and to numerous attempts in the developed world, the concept of cross-subsidizing any industry has failed miserably: weakest do not become self-sufficient, and huge resources are spent in vain; 2)worse, the international practice of delivery technical and other kinds of assistance shows that 70% of funding allocated for TA projects remains in the country/ organization that delivers it, while 2/3 of the remaining 30% go straight into the pockets of the ruling class/ executives in the recipient country/ organization. Personally, I saw it many times in Russia and across ex-USSR 3) in light of the above, if ICANN is to deliver whatever capacity building TA projects, that will mean creating more administrative jobs at ICANN and multiplying the number of "engagers", communicators, etc. who will effectively eat away the resources even before their litle chunks reach the recipient. Plus so far ICANN has not been particularly efficient in delivering this kind of projects and there are no reasons to suggest it would drastically improve the performance. 4) should ccTLDs become one and only recipient of such assistance, some other communities may become truly frustrated and request their piece of cake, which would lead to alienation, rather than consolidation of the broad community. Wouldn't it be wiser to think of establishing an endowment to fund local initiatives/foster gifted individuals on the local level managed by a small board representing all the stakeholders which would be able to pick and fund projects, and select their operators on the basis of competition? That would enable the community to exercise a due control over the funds and ensure a much-needed level of transparency coupled with an equal treatement of all the multistakeholder community Pls feel free to share the above with the Council members if you deem it appropriate Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On 25 September 2016 at 20:03, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > wrote: +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 / <http://www.neustar.biz> 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 / <http://www.neustar.biz/> neustar.biz From: Katrina Sataki < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> katrina@nic.lv> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" < <mailto: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 I think there is value in ccTLDs contributing to this and support Becky and Chris in the ccNSO taking on an active role in the process. Other groups are engaged in the process without having directly contributed and I see it as a key issue for ICANN moving forward that ccNSO should not be silent on. A number of ccTLDs operate foundations, do grants etc and I think their experience and knowledge would be of value through this. Cheers Debbie
On 26/09/2016, at 21:51, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find an email from Leonid below – his views on the discussion around Auction Proceeds.
On a separate note, Leonid indicated “as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list...” which should not be the case. May I ask the Secretariat to check if this is true and, if it is indeed, to correct whatever went wrong as all our observers and liaisons should be able to share their views on the ccNSO Council mailing list.
Thank you!
Regards,
]{atrina
From: Leonid Todorov [mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org>] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:47 AM To: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>; chris@disspain.uk <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
Dear All-
as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list, I cannot help but signal some precaution about the idea you support and suggest some reasons why: 1) from the USSR times and to numerous attempts in the developed world, the concept of cross-subsidizing any industry has failed miserably: weakest do not become self-sufficient, and huge resources are spent in vain; 2)worse, the international practice of delivery technical and other kinds of assistance shows that 70% of funding allocated for TA projects remains in the country/ organization that delivers it, while 2/3 of the remaining 30% go straight into the pockets of the ruling class/ executives in the recipient country/ organization. Personally, I saw it many times in Russia and across ex-USSR 3) in light of the above, if ICANN is to deliver whatever capacity building TA projects, that will mean creating more administrative jobs at ICANN and multiplying the number of "engagers", communicators, etc. who will effectively eat away the resources even before their litle chunks reach the recipient. Plus so far ICANN has not been particularly efficient in delivering this kind of projects and there are no reasons to suggest it would drastically improve the performance. 4) should ccTLDs become one and only recipient of such assistance, some other communities may become truly frustrated and request their piece of cake, which would lead to alienation, rather than consolidation of the broad community.
Wouldn't it be wiser to think of establishing an endowment to fund local initiatives/foster gifted individuals on the local level managed by a small board representing all the stakeholders which would be able to pick and fund projects, and select their operators on the basis of competition? That would enable the community to exercise a due control over the funds and ensure a much-needed level of transparency coupled with an equal treatement of all the multistakeholder community
Pls feel free to share the above with the Council members if you deem it appropriate
Thank you,
L.
Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews <https://twitter.com/aptldnews> APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ <https://www.facebook.com/aptld/>
On 25 September 2016 at 20:03, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote:
+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
+1@Debbie. We should re-think the “let’s not get involved” decision… Best, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:38 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Hi Katrina I think there is value in ccTLDs contributing to this and support Becky and Chris in the ccNSO taking on an active role in the process. Other groups are engaged in the process without having directly contributed and I see it as a key issue for ICANN moving forward that ccNSO should not be silent on. A number of ccTLDs operate foundations, do grants etc and I think their experience and knowledge would be of value through this. Cheers Debbie On 26/09/2016, at 21:51, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> > wrote: Dear All, Please find an email from Leonid below – his views on the discussion around Auction Proceeds. On a separate note, Leonid indicated “as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list...” which should not be the case. May I ask the Secretariat to check if this is true and, if it is indeed, to correct whatever went wrong as all our observers and liaisons should be able to share their views on the ccNSO Council mailing list. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Leonid Todorov [ <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:47 AM To: Burr, Becky < <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Katrina Sataki < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> katrina@nic.lv>; <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> chris@disspain.uk Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All- as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list, I cannot help but signal some precaution about the idea you support and suggest some reasons why: 1) from the USSR times and to numerous attempts in the developed world, the concept of cross-subsidizing any industry has failed miserably: weakest do not become self-sufficient, and huge resources are spent in vain; 2)worse, the international practice of delivery technical and other kinds of assistance shows that 70% of funding allocated for TA projects remains in the country/ organization that delivers it, while 2/3 of the remaining 30% go straight into the pockets of the ruling class/ executives in the recipient country/ organization. Personally, I saw it many times in Russia and across ex-USSR 3) in light of the above, if ICANN is to deliver whatever capacity building TA projects, that will mean creating more administrative jobs at ICANN and multiplying the number of "engagers", communicators, etc. who will effectively eat away the resources even before their litle chunks reach the recipient. Plus so far ICANN has not been particularly efficient in delivering this kind of projects and there are no reasons to suggest it would drastically improve the performance. 4) should ccTLDs become one and only recipient of such assistance, some other communities may become truly frustrated and request their piece of cake, which would lead to alienation, rather than consolidation of the broad community. Wouldn't it be wiser to think of establishing an endowment to fund local initiatives/foster gifted individuals on the local level managed by a small board representing all the stakeholders which would be able to pick and fund projects, and select their operators on the basis of competition? That would enable the community to exercise a due control over the funds and ensure a much-needed level of transparency coupled with an equal treatement of all the multistakeholder community Pls feel free to share the above with the Council members if you deem it appropriate Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> l.todorov@aptld.org Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/aptldnews> https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/aptld/> https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On 25 September 2016 at 20:03, Burr, Becky < <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote: +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 / <http://www.neustar.biz/> neustar.biz From: Chris Disspain < <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> chris@disspain.uk> Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM To: Katrina Sataki < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> katrina@nic.lv> Cc: Becky Burr < <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> becky.burr@neustar.biz>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" < <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> 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 < <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> chris@disspain.uk> Date: Thursday 22 September 2016 19:39 To: Becky Burr < <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Cc: Katrina Sataki < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> katrina@nic.lv>, ccNSO Council < <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> 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 / <http://www.neustar.biz/> neustar.biz From: Katrina Sataki < <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> katrina@nic.lv> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" < <mailto: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, I am getting similar messages from CENTR members along the lines of what Debbie says. That fund is also becoming a political issue and is impacting the way ICANN (and the DNS industry) is perceived. So it would be good if the ccNSO can contribute. Indeed, quite a few ccTLDs have experience with managing trusts and foundations, and I am sure they would be happy to share that experience. Peter From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: 26 September 2016 21:38 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Hi Katrina I think there is value in ccTLDs contributing to this and support Becky and Chris in the ccNSO taking on an active role in the process. Other groups are engaged in the process without having directly contributed and I see it as a key issue for ICANN moving forward that ccNSO should not be silent on. A number of ccTLDs operate foundations, do grants etc and I think their experience and knowledge would be of value through this. Cheers Debbie On 26/09/2016, at 21:51, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear All, Please find an email from Leonid below – his views on the discussion around Auction Proceeds. On a separate note, Leonid indicated “as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list...” which should not be the case. May I ask the Secretariat to check if this is true and, if it is indeed, to correct whatever went wrong as all our observers and liaisons should be able to share their views on the ccNSO Council mailing list. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Leonid Todorov [mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:47 AM To: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>; chris@disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All- as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list, I cannot help but signal some precaution about the idea you support and suggest some reasons why: 1) from the USSR times and to numerous attempts in the developed world, the concept of cross-subsidizing any industry has failed miserably: weakest do not become self-sufficient, and huge resources are spent in vain; 2)worse, the international practice of delivery technical and other kinds of assistance shows that 70% of funding allocated for TA projects remains in the country/ organization that delivers it, while 2/3 of the remaining 30% go straight into the pockets of the ruling class/ executives in the recipient country/ organization. Personally, I saw it many times in Russia and across ex-USSR 3) in light of the above, if ICANN is to deliver whatever capacity building TA projects, that will mean creating more administrative jobs at ICANN and multiplying the number of "engagers", communicators, etc. who will effectively eat away the resources even before their litle chunks reach the recipient. Plus so far ICANN has not been particularly efficient in delivering this kind of projects and there are no reasons to suggest it would drastically improve the performance. 4) should ccTLDs become one and only recipient of such assistance, some other communities may become truly frustrated and request their piece of cake, which would lead to alienation, rather than consolidation of the broad community. Wouldn't it be wiser to think of establishing an endowment to fund local initiatives/foster gifted individuals on the local level managed by a small board representing all the stakeholders which would be able to pick and fund projects, and select their operators on the basis of competition? That would enable the community to exercise a due control over the funds and ensure a much-needed level of transparency coupled with an equal treatement of all the multistakeholder community Pls feel free to share the above with the Council members if you deem it appropriate Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org<mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On 25 September 2016 at 20:03, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: +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
Dear Katrina, All, I hereby confirm that all observers and liaisons to the ccNSO council can share their views on the ccNSO council mailing list. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Monday 26 September 2016 at 10:51 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: FW: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All, Please find an email from Leonid below – his views on the discussion around Auction Proceeds. On a separate note, Leonid indicated “as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list...” which should not be the case. May I ask the Secretariat to check if this is true and, if it is indeed, to correct whatever went wrong as all our observers and liaisons should be able to share their views on the ccNSO Council mailing list. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Leonid Todorov [mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:47 AM To: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; chris@disspain.uk Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear All- as I technically cannot share my views on the matter across the CCNSO Council members list, I cannot help but signal some precaution about the idea you support and suggest some reasons why: 1) from the USSR times and to numerous attempts in the developed world, the concept of cross-subsidizing any industry has failed miserably: weakest do not become self-sufficient, and huge resources are spent in vain; 2)worse, the international practice of delivery technical and other kinds of assistance shows that 70% of funding allocated for TA projects remains in the country/ organization that delivers it, while 2/3 of the remaining 30% go straight into the pockets of the ruling class/ executives in the recipient country/ organization. Personally, I saw it many times in Russia and across ex-USSR 3) in light of the above, if ICANN is to deliver whatever capacity building TA projects, that will mean creating more administrative jobs at ICANN and multiplying the number of "engagers", communicators, etc. who will effectively eat away the resources even before their litle chunks reach the recipient. Plus so far ICANN has not been particularly efficient in delivering this kind of projects and there are no reasons to suggest it would drastically improve the performance. 4) should ccTLDs become one and only recipient of such assistance, some other communities may become truly frustrated and request their piece of cake, which would lead to alienation, rather than consolidation of the broad community. Wouldn't it be wiser to think of establishing an endowment to fund local initiatives/foster gifted individuals on the local level managed by a small board representing all the stakeholders which would be able to pick and fund projects, and select their operators on the basis of competition? That would enable the community to exercise a due control over the funds and ensure a much-needed level of transparency coupled with an equal treatement of all the multistakeholder community Pls feel free to share the above with the Council members if you deem it appropriate Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org<mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_aptldnews&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=eZDeQG-Wi84I12HM2_-lVsFQRZ4z9pN6ExHUfGjpyC4&s=QoiuObVt8mSb635ZmeKmm0h5oZel8mSnXxr39ObxsSE&e=> APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_aptld_&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=eZDeQG-Wi84I12HM2_-lVsFQRZ4z9pN6ExHUfGjpyC4&s=t_P9QyHaxVpEpYEcVJh0lseeKPkJxLG0IjB21PiFI6c&e=> On 25 September 2016 at 20:03, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: +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[neustar.biz]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=DQMFaQ...> 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[neustar.biz]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz_&d=DQMFa...> 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
participants (5)
-
Debbie Monahan -
Joke Braeken -
Katrina Sataki -
Peter Van Roste -
Stephen Deerhake