August 2017 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

For your review - updated version open internet definition / description
by Marika Konings 07 Sep '17

07 Sep '17

Dear All, Hereby attached the updated version of the open internet definition / description which incorporates the comments and suggestions that were submitted since the last version. As there are a number of definitions / descriptions that have been put forward so far, are there any volunteers who would like to take a stab at coming up with a draft that brings the different perspectives together and addresses the different comments and contributions to date which the CCWG could review during its next meeting? 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-…>.

10 22

For your review - updated objectives overview document
by Marika Konings 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Dear All, Please find attached for your review an updated version of the objectives overview document. This version incorporates some of the comments made after the last version was circulated as well as an updated draft of the objectives description for your review. You are encouraged to share your feedback and/or proposed edits ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regard, 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-…>.

1 0

Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
by Marika Konings 27 Aug '17

27 Aug '17

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-Auction Proceeds meeting. Please take particular note of the action item related to the preliminary WG agreement proposed during today’s meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on Thursday 24 August at 2017 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll call * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect * Please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and mute your mics when not speaking 2. Welcome / DOI 3. Recap CCWG approach for dealing with the charter questions, role of surveys and consensus calls * Lively exchanges on the list and questions in relation to the role of surveys and consensus calls * Staff trying to do its best to capture all the comments and input from calls and mailing list. Important for all to review and comment. * Surveys are intended to help inform deliberations and frame the discussions. Surveys are not consensus calls. * Mind maps are a translation of that input - help to identify what may be missing. * Leadership team discusses / reviews topics for surveys - way to obtain quick input to help inform discussions. * One page summaries on some key topics have been prepared which aim to capture the essence of the discussions to assist in moving forward the discussion and having all input in one place. * Leadership team is doing its best to keep track of earlier suggestions - but feel free to remind the CCWG of suggestions / ideas. * Many tracks / topics are currently open for discussion which makes it challenging for some to keep up. * CCWG reminded to review section 5 - rules of engagement of the charter which outlines decision making process (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw) Formal consensus call is conducted at the end of the process, but preliminary agreements may already been achieved at earlier stages of the process. Ideally full consensus is found, but charter also foresees option of minority positions. Action item #1: CCWG to review section 5 of the Charter on decision-making methodology (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw) 4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/) * Is there any input from new gTLD SubPro whether the auction mechanism may be used in the future? May not be likely as most desirable names have already been applied for, private auctions may take precedent and application fees may get adjusted noting experience from this round. Note there is also still substantial funding remaining in the ligitation fund. Would others be inclined to provide funding to the mechanism is created? Also depends on amount of funding that is spent per project as it may also influence the spending rate. * CCWG should not assume that more money is coming in - could be an option, but assumption is that funding is limited to what has been generated by new gTLD auction proceeds. As such, focus should be on funds that are currently available. * Permanent endowment could be considered incompatible with ICANN's charter and mission - have nothing to do with giving money away. Is a distraction from what ICANN's is supposed to be doing. * Consider adding this question to the list of questions for external experts - get an understanding of how they deal with this topic factoring in the amount of funds involved. * Possible preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). No objections expressed on the call for this preliminary WG agreement. Action item #2: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). 5. Review responses to survey related to charter question #10, Should ICANN the organization be permitted to apply for auction proceeds funds * See responses to survey circulated (https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-K3MK9MY5/) * Majority of respondents to the survey do not support allowing ICANN the organization to be permitted to apply for funds to replenish the ICANN reserve fund. * Would it be good for ICANN Org / Board to articulate why reserve fund is in current situation and what plans it has to replenish the reserve fund which may further assist in informing the CCWG deliberations in this regard? * Potential issues would need to be addressed on how to oversee / police allocation to reserve fund. * Is a potential new "Auction fund foundation" with a 501(c) status even allowed to donate to an Icann reserve fund? Doesn't sound like a 'charity'-donation. Funds could be allocated prior to creation of fund/foundation? * CCWG is only discussing whether we honour the request from the Board to allocate some of the funds to the reserve. CCWG can decide if we do and how much. The existance of the reserve and the target level is out of scope for the CCWG. * Regarding the ICANN Reserve Fund: ICANN has a reserve fund in place, set up in 2007. It is governed by the Investment Policy, approved by the Board. This policy says that the level of the Reserve Fund should be at least of 12 months of Operating Expenses, which is currently of approximately $140m. The Reserve Fund balance is currently of approximately $60m, after about $30m were taken to cover for the costs of the IANA Stewardship transition (CWG, CCWG, implementaion costs,...). * Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60. Action item #3: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting. Action item #4: Staff to document all surveys & results on wiki 6. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) a. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives Deferred to next meeting b. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’ Deferred to next meeting Action item #5: Staff to update the overview documents for objectives and open internet with input provided since circulation and put out to the list for further and input and discussion prior to the next meeting. c. Review examples Deferred to next meeting 7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update * CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance. 8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September 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-…>.

4 4

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate in doodle poll - ICANN60 planning
by Alan Greenberg 27 Aug '17

27 Aug '17

The options are all pretty bad. Friday is completely out, as the ALAC and our incoming regional leaders are meeting in integration sessions and others are already scheduled to leave that day (as there are no public meetings scheduled). Alan At 23/08/2017 10:36 AM, Erika Mann wrote: >Dear Manai, dear Olga - > >it would be great to have you with us. If Friday >could be an option for you, when will you have >settled the GAC schedule for Friday? > >Thanks, >Erika > >On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Olga Cavalli ><<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dear Marika, dear Manal, > >thanks Manal for the commens, so these limitations are the same for me. > >Best >Olga > >2017-08-23 10:47 GMT-03:00 Manal Ismail ><<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>manal(a)tra.gov.eg>: > >Dear Marika .. > >Many thanks for the doodle poll .. > >It's difficult for me to commit to any of the >slots as 3 of the 4 referenced conflicting cross >community discussions are already proposed by the GAC .. > >Friday may be an option depending on the GAC >agenda on that day, which is still not clear .. > >So Iâll do my best to attend, but I don't want >to influence the decision as I'm not sure I'll be able to make it .. > >Kind Regards > >--Manal > > > >From: ><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings >Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:15 PM >To: <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please >participate in doodle poll - ICANN60 planning > > > >Dear All, > > > >The leadership team would like to request your >input on the scheduling for ICANN60. Originally, >the CCWG-AP meeting was scheduled for Thursday 2 >November from 10.30 â 15.00 (with a break for >lunch). Based on subsequent discussions by the >SO/AC leadership, a number of cross-community >discussion topics have now been placed on the >agenda which creates a potential conflict (see >ICANN60 block schedule attached). In order to >decide whether or not to keep the meeting as is, >shorten the meeting or move it to another slot, >the leadership team would like you to provide >your input by completing the following doodle >poll: ><https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/atbdds59ii7ru3cs>https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/atbdds59ii7ru3cs. >Please use âyesâ for your preferred option, >âcould do if I have to (yes)â for >alternatives that you could live with and >ânoâ if you do not support and/or would not >be able to participate. Note, that some of the >alternative options also would mean the meeting >would run in parallel to other sessions as >many of you know, a meeting without any type of >conflict dooes unfortunately not exist at an >ICANN meeting.As always, remote participation >will be available for those that are not >planning to travel in person to ICANN60. > > > >As the time/date of the meeting needs to be >confirmed as soon as possible, please provide >your feedback by Wednesday 23 August COB at the latest. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Marika > > > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:bfDdlhKRkncRhVOh34uq2Cy+WmAxIrd42UQ2/d+f5XHFyJZidrqkUidu1QRoaDKCg94Ylsf/kfVJrx48UxnjjPSBQf1+hnt8Jk9Dqw80f5Wppq61FYeIYAftUB6UzrFM >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

3 3

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email, and the AC Chat, MP3 and Adobe Connect recordings below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-24aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2o284uaclg/<https://participate.icann.org/p2o284uaclg/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> 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 agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/Z2zwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie --------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 24 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Erika Mann:Hi Julie Erika Mann:Hi everyone! Julf Helsingius:Erika: I am still on the GNSO Council call... Julie Bisland:hello Erika!! welcome everyone! Erika Mann:Marika might be a bit late today, she's still on the GNSO Council call Erika Mann:And Ching will join us a bit later as well, his's still on a plane Julf Helsingius:Erika: trying to wrap up Dietmar Stefitz:Hi to all of you! Erika Mann:Good to know Julf, thanks! Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone. judith hellerstein:HI LL judith hellerstein:HI ALL Manal Ismail:Hello everyone :) !! Erika Mann:Asha is joining us late as well, she's still in a meeting Marc Gauw:Hello all ! Jian Zhang:hi all Sylvia Cadena:Hi everyone Carolina Caeiro:hi all Glenn McKnight:Hi Glenn McKnight:Great comments from Sylvia Cadena about tides Kavouss Arasteh:Good time to all, Julf Helsingius:Council meeting ended Kavouss Arasteh:May I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST EVERBODY WHO SPEAKS KINDLY SPEAK SLOWLY, CLEARLY SEPARATING SYLLABUS ONE FROM ANOTHER AS not EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ABILITY TO GRASPS Kavouss Arasteh:WHAT IS SAID Glenn McKnight:Good point Kavouss judith hellerstein:Thanks Kavouss for reminding all about this Glenn McKnight:A good use of Captioning here judith hellerstein:Exactly Vanda Scartezini:would be very good... judith hellerstein:I have requested this but as it is a CCWG, it has to be approved separately Sylvia Cadena:All that work is greatly appreciate it. Trying to collect so many contributions is hard work. Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Marika Sylvia Cadena:I guess there are issues that are interdependent, and it is a bit hard to limit comments to one issue alone. Trying to focus on one, will be great but sometimes seems difficult Kavouss Arasteh: pls speak slowly Vanda Scartezini:@sylvia. very true. the resumen are so great. we need to really appreciate the work done. is making our task much easier Kavouss Arasteh:Bitte sprechen sie langsam Marika Konings:The charter can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… . Erika is referring to section 5. Alan Greenberg:@Kavouss: :-) Kavouss Arasteh:Alan, what do you mean, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH SUCH CODED SCRIPT Alan Greenberg:It is a smile. Alan Greenberg:If you tilt your head to the left you might see it. Kavouss Arasteh:i WILL WHENEVER IT COMES TO THT MOMENT Stephanie Perrin:Apologies for being late. Jacob Odame-Baiden:Me too just joined Wale Bakare:Apologies for joining late Wale Bakare:Hi all Julf Helsingius:is someone being strangled in the background? Sylvia Cadena:My thoughts exactly, Julf :D enoss:now in adobe as well. thanks enoss:@marika was there any difference in the voting between members and participants? enoss:or roughly evenly split as well Becky Burr:+ 1 Alan. I don't think we should assume there is more money coming in. Marika Konings:@Eliott - I have not undertaken that analysis, but could do so if helpful. Alan Greenberg:@Becky, not unless you plan to donate! Sylvia Cadena:Another way is to have answers on the survey that push respondents to have an opinion, using responses such as: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. That might push us all to be more clear. Vanda Scartezini:what I have suggest is just IF a new very interesting project come out after the end of $ we can opt to spen a % of Money from the Reserve ( if we accept to have such reserve) and for this have a mechanism on how to make this acceptance of such new project Stephen Deerhake (.as):+1 Alan as well. Also +1 Becky as well. Assume no more money is coming in... judith hellerstein:@elliott some of us are participants since we did not have the time to make every single meeting and chose to be participants for that reason Marika Konings:For this CCWG, members are those appointed by the chartering organizations. Others can choose to join as participants or observers. Alan Greenberg:Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we must assume there is no more money coming it. If it does, so be it. But we cannot presaume it and it is not, in my mind, worth considering at this point. judith hellerstein:@marika, what I meant to say is we did not put our names into the selection committee to be chosen as members Marika Konings:Thanks Judith for that clarification - I do note that some of the survey respondents may not be clear on the difference between member and participant so I'll make it further clear in upcoming surveys so that everyone ticks the proper box :-) Glenn McKnight:@Marika i remember finishing a survey a while ago. Is this survey a new one? Marika Konings:No, it is the old one, but it got deferred from the last meeting as we ran out of time Erika Mann:Xavier - can you confirm the 80 MIO number being reserved for litigation? Jonathan Robinson:@Eliot. Good series of points on background. Agree that next round remains some way off. Vanda Scartezini:good point John Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 ALAN MR JOHN ROBERT LEVINE:@alan +1 many times Wale Bakare:Exactly, Alan Wale Bakare:Thanks for that Sylvia Cadena:Agree with Alan, we need to focus on the task at hand. Alan Greenberg:If 5 years from now, there is more money, let's deal with it then. SO unless someone is planning on writing a large cheque now, let's stop hypothesizing. judith hellerstein:I agree with alan Sylvia Cadena:Quality and efficiency should prevail. Vanda Scartezini:agree ALAN, the focus shall be in the quality of the project. Jonathan Robinson:I'll conrtribute in chat judith hellerstein:I agree with what alan says. we should use the money efficiently and expeditously and speed should not be the guiding point Jonathan Robinson:In support of Alan's most recent point, it's not speed that's the objective but rather not being focused on preservation of capital Stephanie Perrin:I certainly agree with the statement Erika is making. Kavouss Arasteh:Alan, how do you describe"Effectivel" what it is about Glenn McKnight:sorry no audio Sylvia Cadena:I just used the Agree button Erika. Glenn McKnight:I just agreed Manal Ismail:+1 Alan on quality rather than timeframe .. Stephanie Perrin:Apologies for not filling the poll, I thought I had done it (too many polls this week I guess) Wale Bakare:I discoverd that discussions on the mailing list are not included in meeting's agenda Marika Konings:@Wale - please see item 6. enoss:how was that question asked? Jonathan Robinson:As per my previous point. The key is that this is intended to be a disbursemnet of the capital. Marika Konings:although we may not have time to cover item 6 in today's meeting enoss:raise hand if AGREE? judith hellerstein:noraise hand if you do not agree Stephanie Perrin:Use agree flag Sylvia Cadena:If you are on Adobe, use the agree button. Wale Bakare:Thanks, Marika Xavier Calvez:To precise what Elliott said about the new gTLD program fees: the total application fee was $185,000. From this total, $60,000 from this total fee was designed to cover for "hard-to-predict" expenses of the program (like unexpected evaluation steps, mis-estimation of the costs of planned steps, other risks, legal defense costss,...). Elliott also indicated that there was an excess of $80m of leftover fees. To correct this statement, it is not known today whether there will be left over funds, once the program is done. There are more future costs to be incurred on the program: evaluation costs, administrative costs, legal defense costs. It is currently estimated that, once all predictable costs have been incurred, there would be about $90m left to cover for risk -related costs (including legal defense). It is not known yet how much these risk-related costs will be nor how long it will take for all matters of the program to be closed. Erika Mann:Sylvia, we can do this ... I will point out to it Marika Konings:How about this for the CCWG agreements in relation to this topic: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). Wale Bakare:I think, "effectiveness" in context may mean projects that would have long term impact on ICANN' mission. Hope i am not wrong Jonathan Robinson:@Marika. I think that's a good start. Marika Konings:please mute your mic when not speaking hadia Elminiawi:@Wale i guess the word "effectiveness" needs to be yet defined Xavier Calvez:To further clarify (Thank you Sylvia for the suggestion), the new gTLD program application fees and the remaining funds that Elliott and I commented on are fully separate and segregated from the auction proceeds that this CCWG is dealing with. Vanda Scartezini:13 in my account Dietmar Stefitz:agree Carolina Caeiro:just support Carolina Caeiro:yes, thank you Erika enoss:(I will need to drop off in 5 min) Wale Bakare:@Hadia, conciously the words "effective" and "judicious" may bring variation of meanings Erika Mann:Thank you Xavier. This is very helpful. enoss:I would like to call for consensus on this point Marika Konings:Note that the survey was inspired by the email that Jonathan R. sent to the list, not the discussion on the call :-) enoss:51:17 is as much as we would be likely to get on another issue enoss:any other issue, not another Marika Konings:it is a bit faint, but fine Stephanie Perrin:no not at all Dietmar Stefitz:yes, I hear him enoss:I can barely hear him enoss:NOW yes judith hellerstein:this is much better. thanks Sylvia Cadena:Can someone send the adobe connect link to Olga? she is asking on the list judith hellerstein:she is on the call already Marika Konings:@Sylvia - it has been sent to her. judith hellerstein:i sent it her via email and whats ap Sylvia Cadena:Great ;) Sylvia Cadena:Thank you ladies :) judith hellerstein:she said she was having connectivity issues enoss:then we should also have an articulation as to why this is inappropriate for these funds Alan Greenberg:Note it was not just CCWG Acct, but also the CWG IANA Stewardship that drew down the reserve. enoss:AND why the $90m xavier identified should not be called on first before these funds enoss:which are a CLEAR and UNIQUE opportunity to help Jonathan Robinson:@Eliot. Both good points. enoss:(apologies gtg, but will leave chat open to read later Alan Greenberg:@Eliott, I would be delighted if the $90m would be used for the reserve, but I think many applicants would strongly object. Jonathan Robinson:To be clear, the $90m being described here is a separate sum outside of current reserve and auction funds. Marc Gauw:What I missed during the discussion on 'suporting the Icann reserve fund' is the fiscal /legal question whether a potential new "Auction fund foundation" with a 501(c) status is even allowed to donate to an Icann reserve fund. Doesn't sound like a 'charity'-donation.. Alan Greenberg:Marc, an interesting question. But if we wished, we could designate it before the rest goes to the "foundation" Vanda Scartezini:MArc. done before as Alan said solves the question related to 501(c) Marc Gauw:@Aan..... Ok, but then Icann would 'donate' to itself.... not sure how tax-authorities see that Vanda Scartezini:understand the account still in ICANN name. just move from one account to another inside the organization, not a donation Alan Greenberg:In my opinion, we (the CCWG) would recommend that ICANN take $X and move itinto the reserve, and the rest to the foundation (or whatever). hadia Elminiawi:@Alan alternatively a committee could be formed for this purpose, as this group is not to designated to allocate any money Stephanie Perrin 2:One question is, if the CCWG ran us over and caused funds to be depleted, why did we not anticipate that as a corporation? I do think a reasonable case needs to be presented, as Jonathan suggested. We should in the meantime move on. hadia Elminiawi:@Alan alternatively a committee could be formed for this purpose, as this group is not designated to allocate any money Julf Helsingius:jjjjjI don't think that is for this group to decide MR JOHN ROBERT LEVINE:no, of course not. The reserve is set as part of ICANN's overall budget Sylvia Cadena:No, we are discussing if part of the auction funds goes to replenish the reserves or not. ICANN already has a reserve. Julf Helsingius:so we all agree Wale Bakare:ICANN reserve fund discussion is outside scope of this group Marc Gauw:Ok, but then the question is NOT whether WE THINK the auctions funds will be used to donate to the Icann reserve fund, but whether Icann reserves all the Auction money for the Auction Fund. So in fact... it is not our decision then ! Wale Bakare:*outside the scope Sylvia Cadena:Kavous, we are mnot intervening in that issue. Alan Greenberg:We are ONLY discussing whwether we honour the request from the Board to allocate some of the funds to the reserve. We can decide if we do and how much. The existance of the reserve and the target level is not on our table. Sylvia Cadena:We are asked to say yes or no to use auction funds to replenish the reserves. Those conversations are about how much of the auction funds can be allocated. Stephanie Perrin 2:I believe the question is, do we need to contemplate a structure that would permit ICANN to apply for the funds. Since I cannot imagine such a structure under the current non-profit nature of the organization, either we get legal advice on how that would be possible, or we drop it. Wale Bakare:@Sylvia, are you saying the whole Auction Funds or part? judith hellerstein:@stephanie, I thik we heard the legal advice that it is allowed, but the question is whether we should agree to allow this. It seems to be a perception issue hadia Elminiawi:+1Alan Sylvia Cadena:The charter question is quite clear, as Alan is mentioning @Wale Erika Mann:Only part @Wale Wale Bakare:Good, "some part". Let us discuss how much Marc Gauw:OK, clear Alan, thanks... Manal Ismail:+1 Alan Stephanie Perrin 2:So then a brief synopsis is: Board cannot at the moment just reach out and take the funds. They are asking us to permit ICANN to take some of the funds for the reserve. There is nothing in the original applicants guidebook, resolutions regarding funds, charter of the group etc that says this is illegal. The question is whether it is ethical. Sylvia Cadena:This is the charter question we are trying to address "To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?" Alan Greenberg:In my mind, A reasonable limit would be no more that the lesser of 20% and $50m. Alan Greenberg:That covers the case of us only having $105m or the ful 240m Alan Greenberg:But that is just my opinion and suggestion. Alan Greenberg:Discussing this without full infrom the Board is not worth the time. Nadira AL-Araj:+1 Alan for the board input Wale Bakare:@Alan, i support your suggestion just as you suggested in last meeting. Can't we focus on that? Stephanie Perrin 2:Thanks Sylvia. I guess I see a qualitative difference in that Charter question.....I had assumed that it meant could a consitutuent part (eg the fellowship program, the ICANN academy) apply for part of the funds for purposes that appeared to match our goals. I did not think that Charter question contemplated a constituent part of the org applying for basic operating expenses. judith hellerstein:I agree with Stephanie Perrin Marika Konings:@Sylvia - that is also captured in the notes and record of survey will be kept. Marika Konings:We'll start documenting the different surveys on the wiki so these can be easily found. judith hellerstein:I think that is what the survey showed us Marilyn Cade:The report should be careful to note what status each respondent has -- e.g. Member, participant, observer, etc. Xavier Calvez:Regarding the ICANN Reserve Fund: ICANN has a reserve fund in place, set up in 2007. It is governed by the Investment Policy, approved by the Board. This policy says that the level of the Reserve Fund should be at least of 12 months of Operating Expenses, which is currently of approximately $140m. The Reserve Fund balance is currently of approximately $60m, after about $30m were taken to cover for the costs of the IANA Stewardship transition (CWG, CCWG, implementaion costs,...). Jonathan Robinson:Agree with Sylvia and others. The outcome of the survey (and thsoe who participated) is clear. But, suggest we conclude subject to hearing new / additional information in this case. We are essentially in the drak as to current (board / organisation) thinking on the reserve fund. Nadira AL-Araj:What about a scenario if we delegated the fund distribution to established independent organization. If ICANN apply to any project like any other entity, that might happen Vanda Scartezini:agree too, lost connection few seconds.. Marika Konings:@Marilyn - respondents are asked to self-identify but I've noticed that not everyone is clear on their status so we'll make sure to clarify that in future surveys. Sylvia Cadena:The project about doing that is that requesting reserves funds is not really a project. So evaluation/monitoring of that activity will overstep on what the Board does to oversee the reserves management @nadira Sylvia Cadena:Thanks Erika. Will be there. Julie Bisland:The next CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call will be held on Thursday, 07 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Nadira AL-Araj:Thank Syliva, I'm talking about another scenario Vanda Scartezini:holiday here so not a problema at all for Sept. 7th Wale Bakare:Thanks Erika, bye all Sylvia Cadena:Thank you all Marc Gauw:Thanks all, and bye bye from Holland ! Vanda Scartezini:thank you all have a nacie weeks Manal Ismail:Thanks Erika, Marka and all .. Carolina Caeiro:Bye, thanks judith hellerstein:bye all Sylvia Cadena:bye from Brisbane Joke Braeken:thank you all. Bye. Nadira AL-Araj:Thank you Erika & Markia and all. hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all, bye Julf Helsingius:Thanks Erika and everybody! Dietmar Stefitz:Thanks, erika, Marika et all! Jacob Odame-Baiden:thank you all, bye

1 0

REMINDER Re: Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds
by Marika Konings 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

Reminder – please participate in the poll if you have not done so yet. Best regards, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 06:12 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting All, A couple of thoughts on this topic. On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: * Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and * If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Hello, Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: All, I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en[icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs(a)bemarnet.es<mailto:djs@bemarnet.es>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. Alan At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: Hi Erika and all, I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something? Dietmar Stefitz Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> < kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Dear Erika, Dear All, >> Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to >> allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve >> account. >> If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the >> level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be >> equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level >> has not been reached. >> Alanâ€™s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside >> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed >> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve >> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the >> Board and not by this group >> Regards >> Kavouss >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> Please find below the notes and action items from todayâ€™s CCWG-AP meeting. >>> Best regards, >>> Joke Braeken >>> Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017: >>> These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the >>> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript >>> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and >>> are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. >>> Roll Call >>> Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on >>> mute when not speaking. >>> Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. >>> Welcome – DOI >>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management >>> The intention of this presentation is >>> to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, >>> to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be >>> raised. >>> It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an >>> overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead >>> to how they might be managed in the future. >>> Important to note: >>> only conservative investment policies are being used >>> the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives >>> An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, >>> followed by Q&A. >>> Parameters that need to be considered: >>> amount of money >>> horizon >>> level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) >>> Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly >>> stakeholder calls. >>> (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. >>> https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterl…>) >>> Reserve Fund: 64 million >>> New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million >>> Auction proceeds: 233 million >>> Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. >>> Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be >>> taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be >>> legal. >>> This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this >>> question: â€œTo what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or >>> a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€ >>> The group needs to discuss this at a later stage. >>> Next meeting >>> next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC >>> = = = = >>> Action item #1: >>> CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on >>> https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Aucti…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> ) >>> and to share any further questions for Xavier on the groupâ€™s mailing list. >>> Action item #2: >>> Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the >>> attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based >>> on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is >>> encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of >>> objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the >>> next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC. >>> Action item #3: >>> CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the >>> discussion on the mailing list. >>> (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> ) >>> = = = = >>> Joke Braeken >>> ccNSO Policy Advisor >>> joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> >>> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> >>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> >>> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMF…> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

6 8

Proposed agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds on Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed agenda – CCWG-AP Meeting – Thursday 24 August 2017 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / DOI 3. Recap CCWG approach for dealing with the charter questions, role of surveys and consensus calls 4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/) 5. Review responses to survey related to charter question #10, Should ICANN the organization be permitted to apply for auction proceeds funds (to participate: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W) 6. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) * Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives * Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’ * Review examples 7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update (see https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/atbdds59ii7ru3cs) 8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September 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-…>.

8 9

For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
by Marika Konings 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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-…>.

12 27

Please participate in doodle poll - ICANN60 planning
by Marika Konings 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Dear All, The leadership team would like to request your input on the scheduling for ICANN60. Originally, the CCWG-AP meeting was scheduled for Thursday 2 November from 10.30 – 15.00 (with a break for lunch). Based on subsequent discussions by the SO/AC leadership, a number of cross-community discussion topics have now been placed on the agenda which creates a potential conflict (see ICANN60 block schedule attached). In order to decide whether or not to keep the meeting as is, shorten the meeting or move it to another slot, the leadership team would like you to provide your input by completing the following doodle poll: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/atbdds59ii7ru3cs. Please use ‘yes’ for your preferred option, ‘could do if I have to (yes)’ for alternatives that you could live with and ‘no’ if you do not support and/or would not be able to participate. Note, that some of the alternative options also would mean the meeting would run in parallel to other sessions – as many of you know, a meeting without any type of conflict does unfortunately not exist at an ICANN meeting….As always, remote participation will be available for those that are not planning to travel in person to ICANN60. As the time/date of the meeting needs to be confirmed as soon as possible, please provide your feedback by Wednesday 23 August COB 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-…>.

4 3

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your input - Open Internet definition
by Evan Leibovitch 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

On 20 August 2017 at 02:41, Olawale Bakare <wales.baky(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > As 1 and 2 components fit into the openness of internet but the 3rd maybe > undefinable. At the moment the "open content" is a mucky mix of political > wheeler-dealing, in most developed and developing/under-developed nations. > It doesn't need to be that over-thought. At its simplest level, "open content" is the absence of meddling to block or impede sites and services deemed "bad". What defines "bad" can take many meanings, from political opposition to hate speech to illegal copying to online gambling. But part of promoting an "open internet" is to resist such blocking. Now, just as free speech is not an absolute concept and often has reasonable public-interest limits, so does "open content". Indeed, currently such a debate is taking a very lively form in the US as domain registrars and service providers shun the neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer. Currently the EFF is opposing acts to shut down the site <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-free-expres…>., which is to some a very unpopular stance. - Evan

7 7