April 2017 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board
by Marika Konings 28 Apr '17

28 Apr '17

Dear All, Please find attached for final review the proposed response to the ICANN Board. Note that I’ve accepted all previous edits so you will only see in redline the changes as a result of today’s discussion. You are requested to provide any further comments and/or edits by Thursday 4 May at the latest. Following that, the leadership team will go ahead and submit this letter to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 27 Apr '17

27 Apr '17

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-27apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5274mpyls7/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/atLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 27 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group call on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Erika Mann:Hi team! Can we test audio quickly? Alan Greenberg:We can play the new game of chance in ICANN. Will we have Adobe Connect sound on this meeting? Alan Greenberg:Yes,. AC audio is fine here. Alan Greenberg:At least outgoing. Alan Greenberg:We have been having a lot of problems in recent days. Alan Greenberg:Not on bridge yet. Erika Mann:I can hear you well Alan! Erika Mann:Let's check if you can hear me! Erika Mann:Hi Ching! Ching Chiao:Hi Erika how are you ? Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Hello all Asha Hemrajani:Good evening from Singapore Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Good morning from Argentina :) Erika Mann:Hello All! Joke Braeken:Hi Ching and Erika, the ccnso council will have to decide to launch a call for volunteers Ching Chiao:Hi Asha, Olga -- good to have you Nadira ALARAJ:Hello All Ching Chiao:Hi Joke -- I was just chatting this with Erika. Thanks for bringing this up! Joke Braeken:welcome, thanks for raising it Ching Asha Hemrajani:你好 Ching! Asha Hemrajani:Joke, that is good to hear Vanda Scartezini:hi all Ching Chiao:您好 Asha 女士 :) Hadia Elminiawi:hello all Nadira ALARAJ:can we the view the document in the final form. Hadia Elminiawi:+1 to the text proposed Marika Konings:The proposed modification would be: Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board. Jon Nevett:That's better than opining what is standard elliot noss:I am strongly in favour of 1% Nadira ALARAJ:Thanks Marika, it sound felixible. elliot noss:$1.4m is TONS at an expense level to give away money elliot noss:but I am ok with the language Jon Nevett:right -- might vary higher or lower -- we shouldn't mention 10% as standard Erika Mann:Thank you Elliot! Vanda Scartezini:i believe to use the wording of Marika but suggest 10% as ALan is suggesting - we leave open enough but state a low limit Jon Nevett:marika's language captures the flexibility very well. Marika Konings:The language seems to accomodate those that may prefer a higher or a lower number by recognising that it is something that will need further consideration but can only informed by further details on the mechanism that is preferred. Marika Konings:seems = aims Erika Mann:I think so too Jon! Nadira ALARAJ:@Marika, the ideas of putting an exact figure is challenging without having any expecation or prediction of what type of project it will be funded and for how long as it was mentioned here Alan Greenberg:I was NOT proposing 20%. I mentioned it to make sure the Board did NOT think we were in that ballpark. Stephanie Perrin:Agree with Elliot, but suggested language does seem to work and register range of views. Manal Ismail:I'm fine with Marika's language too .. Hadia Elminiawi:I meant +1 to the proposed modification Maureen Hilyard:@Stephanie +1 Jon Nevett:Fund is $233M right now and there still are strings to be resolved Jon Nevett:5% is over $11M elliot noss:ok. my 1% is now = $2.33m! Erika Mann:No, we can't work with amount above the 100 Mio Erika Mann:... at least not for right now ... Jon Nevett:just saying what the current fund is Erika Mann:Ching!!! Erika Mann:Ching where are you??? Asha Hemrajani:@Vanda I am not sure if 10% could be considered a "low" limit Marika Konings:You can also find the proposed language on the right hand side in the notes Marika Konings:@Manal - would adding 'as a result of the CCWG deliberations' address your comment? Marika Konings:see on the right hand side in brackets where it would fit Manal Ismail:I'm trying to see whether adding something along the following lines may be useful "At the end, this remains to be determined by the CCWG deliberations." Vanda Scartezini:Ashaa, you may be right, in principle I agree with 5% in the emails exchanged but I can understand ALAN points since ädminsitrative issues" can be largelly understandings - Marika is good bbut it is relevant to written p point is what will be read in the future Brad Verd (RSSAC):I keep hearing the sentiment of a goal to minimize the costs to disperse funds. Can we add something to the proposed language that conveys that sentiment and is audited annually to try to keep the expenses in check. Stephanie Perrin:I understand the need to keep this issue at a high level, but to me the operative point is what any administration funds are spent on...there is no fund raising, but there needs to be good review, metrics and other accountability mechanisms in place for funded projects. Vanda Scartezini:agree we shall not institucionalize any foundation but admistrative can be widely understood Vanda Scartezini:good idea Erika. Asha Hemrajani:Brad & Stephanie +1 Alan Greenberg:COnstraining the project and not institutionalizing may be important considerations. But using the money WELL is at the top of the priority pile in my mind. Nadira ALARAJ:This time sound better, thank you Marika Jon Nevett:looks good Dietmar Stefitz:I do not agree in a compelte distribution and would opt for a Foundation which will remain Vanda Scartezini: agree with Asha Alan Greenberg:We are spending FAR too much time on this. Peter Vergote (ccNSO):yes Maureen Hilyard:yes Vanda Scartezini:yes Nadira ALARAJ:+1 for a week Manal Ismail:yes.. Nadira ALARAJ:no Dietmar Stefitz:yes Stephanie Perrin:The fact that we are spending time on it demonstrates what a hot button issue it is and if we remember this it will help us keep focus on economical but efficient options. Asha Hemrajani:well put Stephanie Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):I believe we need to look into the creation of a foundation where principal funds are not spent and, instead, invested. The growth is then distributed. This is a unique opportunity for this community and it should maximized for posterity and for the good of the Internet. Julf Helsingius:Apologies for joining this late, my flight was delayed Ching Chiao:I think the fundamental answer to Q5 is Xavier / Sam's note on CoI Ching Chiao:I think that's a great base document and guideline Erika Mann:Tripti - yes, that's an idea as well. We will have to start talking about various models Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):Thank you Erika. Erika Mann:Welcome Julf! We will try to finish at 5 PM, to allow members /participants to join another call Vanda Scartezini:@Tripti - we may be out of institucionalize a foundation, the cost of such sttructure in US is too high Julf Helsingius:Thanks, Erika! Erika Mann:Tripti, All - feel free to send'fund' ideas/expert names etc to staff!/ Marika Konings:With regards to the current list of experts identified, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… and feel free to add! elliot noss:again, I was talking about it as a POSSIBILITY, not a determined outcome Vanda Scartezini:agree with ALAN Stephanie Perrin:Agree with Elliot. Would add that if we construct the frame properly, and develop very strong criteria for COI, then the review of the proposals is quite do-able. As to Alan's concern about consistency, I am not convinced that outsourcing necessarily gives consistency either. Marika Konings:Correct Erika - this is input provided by individual WG members / participants Asha Hemrajani:Understood Erika...just wanted to make it clear that the Board has no preference at this point. Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):I need to drop off now. Agree with Erika's proposed next steps. Stephanie Perrin:The range of project size and goals is a very important factor in determining administration models in my view. Nadira ALARAJ:@Marika, regarding the list of experts, it doesn't include the identified by the survey that was criuclated to the CCWG members. Ching Chiao:Based on legal and fidiciary constraint, ICANN can not avoid the responsibility of overseeing the proposals. Can ICANN outsource this function to a outside entity? Marika Konings:correct, these are external experts. I'll make sure to get those survey results posted and linked in this document so it is all in one place. Nadira ALARAJ:Thanks Marika for you efforts in keeping up with all of our demands ;) Marika Konings:My pleasure :-) Vanda Scartezini:great job Marika, indeed Alan Greenberg:@Ching, we can outsource what we want. But have to take responsibility for the quality of the resultant work. Alan Greenberg:We are past the hour. Vanda Scartezini:other call already started Asha Hemrajani:Will have to sign off now. Thank you all. Vanda Scartezini:thanks Jon Nevett:Thanks! Hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all Nadira ALARAJ:Thank you akk elliot noss:thanks everyone. bye Dietmar Stefitz:Thnaks to all of you! Manal Ismail:Thanks .. Bye .. Hadia Elminiawi:bye Joke Braeken:Thank you, bye Erika Mann:Thank you All! Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Bye all Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Erika, Marika and the team Erika Mann:Thank you Maureen!

1 0

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings 27 Apr '17

27 Apr '17

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG - 27 April 2017 1. Start of meeting – roll call · Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect · Reminder, please state name for transcription purposes and keep your microphones on mute when not speaking 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs · Aim to keep call to 60 minutes if possible · Reminder, please share any updates to your DOI 3. Response to ICANN Board letter · Numerous comments received on the mailing list, especially with regards to % to be spent on overhead · Need to be careful with concrete numbers as it is not clear yet what mechanism would be chosen and what the implications would be with regards to overhead. · Proposed modification: Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended [as a result of the CCWG deliberations] and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board. · Board does have understanding that % may vary - critical message is that impact of choices on costs should be factored in so that bulk is not spent on administration/overhead. Action item #1: Staff to circulate letter with updated language for CCWG final review (1 week review time) Action item #2: CCWG Leadership to submit letter to ICANN Board following CCWG final review 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan · See updated approach and work plan circulated · CCWG requested to review these documents and provide input on both steps as well as timing · Timeline for delivery of Initial Report is an artificial deadline - up to CCWG to decide if/when to adjust based on progress made. Action item #3: Staff to circulate documents (updated graphic and updated work plan) Action item #4: CCWG to review updated approach for dealing with charter questions and updated work plan 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 · See template for charter question 5 circulated · Further details may be needed on the selection committees mentioned - may be worth reviewing other responses from same person as it may be further detailed in response to other questions. · Important to determine order in which questions are to be dealt with 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows · See template for charter question 7 circulated · Confusion over the use of ICANN - ICANN staff, ICANN community? Most of the ccTLDs use community volunteers. Should be contemplated. One of the possible outcomes is volunteers from the ICANN community - add this to the template. · Adherence to mission will likely have two implications: will limit # of proposals that would get through first gate, would preclude outside group. · If you use volunteers, there may be an issue of consistency. # of applications is not clear yet, may depend on criteria that are set (e.g. minimum / max. amount to be funded). · Outsourcing or inhouse - may need further consideration once it is clear what the focus / objective of fund allocation will be. · Need to look into the creation of a foundation where principal funds are not spent and, instead, invested. The growth is then distributed. This is a unique opportunity for this community and it should maximized for posterity and for the good of the Internet. · Consider deleting first response as question may not have been clear to person that responded. Action item #5: Staff to update template with input provided during this meeting and circulate it to CCWG for review & input 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC · Review charter question 7 again in order to determine whether there is a certain hierarchy. Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Marika Konings 27 Apr '17

27 Apr '17

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC 1. Start of meeting – roll call 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached) 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template) 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

6 7

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by elliot noss 26 Apr '17

26 Apr '17

also agree about the foundation! > On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:11 AM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > >> I strongly agree with Seun. PLEASE let us not forget that 5%, is $7,000,000! And 10% is $14,000,000!! > > I agree about the 5% vs 10%, but I see no benefit to setting up a separate foundatation. It would have another level of administrative overhead, yet could not do anything that ICANN couldn't do since they'd both be the same kind of US non-profits. > > R's, > John > > PS: If anyone was about to suggest that a foundation might be in some other country, don't go there. > >> >> EN >> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Well it's fine to communicate that the cost might be more than 5% but clearly indicating that to be 10% would have to be back with facts. I will be fine with rewording that section to indicate that the cost may indeed exceed 5% and leave it at that. >>> >>> As to the trust, yes you are right I read that part wrongly (was a quick read). Overall I think we should consider the cost implications of maintaining a foundation and also whether the foundation will continue to access funds beyond the auction proceeds would be something to consider. Ultimately I agree that a foundation may be one of the ways to get ICANN to legitimately spend the huge money(profit) she is making (as a not-for-profit "tax exempt" organisation). >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2017 21:07, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: >>> At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Marika, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: >>>> >>>> 1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: >>>> "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments." >>> >>> I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better. >>> >>> >>>> 2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. >>> >>> I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body. >>> >>> However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes" >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Start of meeting – roll call >>>> >>>> 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs >>>> >>>> 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) >>>> >>>> 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached) >>>> >>>> 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) >>>> >>>> 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template) >>>> >>>> 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika Konings >>>> >>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>> >>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <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:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== >>>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >>>> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>_______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> >> > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Alan Greenberg 26 Apr '17

26 Apr '17

At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Marika, > >Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative >apology for the upcoming call (due to personal >family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: > >1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll >to check how many members indicated that 10% >overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the >use of the word several might be misleading. I >will actually suggest to remove the following text: >"Several CCWG members/participants did point >out, however, that an overhead around 10% is >fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG >members/participants in different funding and project related environments." I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better. >2. On question 7, why are we recommending a >trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be >helpful to have other entities handle the "end >point" applications while ICANN just administer >the funds at high level so long as those >entities meets the requirements to be set by the >ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a >trust in itself could result to more overhead >cost, unless there is a reason to believe this >kind of funds will be available on a continuous >basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body. However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes" Alan >Regards > >On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >Please find below the proposed agenda for the >next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has >been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 >UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed >the comments received on the draft response the >Board, also factoring in the discussion during >the last meeting, and would like to propose the >attached draft as the response to be sent to the >ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or >edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Marika > > > >Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds >CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC > > > >1. Start of meeting roll call > >2. Welcome & updates to DOIs > >3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) > >4. Review of updates approach for dealing >with charter questions and associated work plan >(see updated approach and updated work plan attached) > >5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) > >6. Initial run through of charter question >7, if time allows (see attached template) > >7. Confirm next meeting Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC > > > >Marika Konings > >Vice President, Policy Development Support >GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > >Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our ><http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>interactive >courses and visiting the ><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>GNSO >Newcomer pages. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

3 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Seun Ojedeji 25 Apr '17

25 Apr '17

Hello Marika, Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: 1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments." 2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. Regards On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds > meeting which has been scheduled for *Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC*. > Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the > draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last > meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be > sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please > share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 > April at 14.00 UTC* > > > > 1. Start of meeting – roll call > > 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs > > 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) > > 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions > and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan > attached) > > 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) > > 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see > attached template) > > 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org <marika.konings(a)icann.org> * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >

2 1

For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
by Marika Konings 21 Apr '17

21 Apr '17

Dear All, Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

8 10

For your review - charter question templates and updated approach
by Marika Konings 21 Apr '17

21 Apr '17

Dear All, As a reminder, you are encouraged to share your feedback on the templates that have been developed to facilitate the CCWG’s initial run through of charter questions (see attached), as well as continue providing your thoughts on the charter questions by adding to the google doc which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QN7zarCr2c-2BVv3pfa6Z5O10pDcgHSIQ5Q3CBd…. You will find attached a slightly modified version of the approach for dealing with the charter questions which factors in that certain questions may need to be addressed before work can start on (now) phase 3. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

DOI Review - VANDA SCARTEZINI
by Vanda Scartezini 16 Apr '17

16 Apr '17

Dear all Attached, for your consideration, my revised DOI related basically to question 6, but also adjusted related to my membership representing ALAC that I have started aa an independent individual. Kind regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!

1 0