September 2017 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ELLIOT
by Vanda Scartezini Sept. 13, 2017

Sept. 13, 2017

Lots of joy and success in your life!! 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. On 9/5/17, 13:27, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of elliot noss" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of enoss(a)tucows.com> wrote: >and I will add to this that I am not (at all) convinced that giving away money with a broader scope than the organizational mission would risk non-profit status in any way. ISOC, nominet cira and NLnet are all examples to the contrary. > >I also respect and appreciate ICANN legal giving us their view on the matter AND they are deeply incented to take a narrow view of this question. I do not begrudge them that. BUT, we should be able to avail ourselves of independant opinion, particularly in dealing with $230m! > >hopefully that is enough for mark to hold off on his resignation until this issue is determined, because it is relatively simply determinable. > >EN > >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw(a)nlnet.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on. >> >> I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today. >> >> Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity. >> >> It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG. >> >> Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats. >> >> Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG ! >> >> Kind regards, >> Marc >> >> >> Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann: >>> Dear All - >>> >>> herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. >>> >>> We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. >>> >>> Best, >>> Erika >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >>> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>> To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> >>> >>> >>> Dear Erika and Ching, >>> >>> Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. >>> >>> On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. >>> >>> Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> >> >> -- >> Marc Gauw, >> Directeur Stichting NLnet >> + 31 6 24 874 224 >> + 31 20 888 4252 >> >> marc.gauw(a)nlnet.nl >> >> Science Park 400 >> 1098 XH Amsterdam >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >> 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

2 1

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting. For those of you that were not able to attend the meeting, please take particular note of action item #1. Best regards, Marika Notes - CCWG AP Meeting - 7 September 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 * Attendance will be taken from AC room * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and mute your microphones when not speaking 2. Welcome / DOI * Note that letter from the Board is on the agenda for today's meeting - it already drew some discussion on the list, also from the perspective of DOI. 3. Review redrafted objectives and examples i. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives * Note latest draft that has been circulated. Is this now at a stage where people feel comfortable to preliminary agreeing to this version, noting that there are still some open items that need to be addressed and may impact the final wording. * Third item could be merged into first one so it would read 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems'. Agreement to update this bullet accordingly. Some wordsmithing may need to be done later, but intent is clear. * Preliminary agreement by those on the call on the following proposed objectives: * Specific objectives of new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation are: * 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems'; * Benefit structures or projects that directly support the Internet's unique identifier systems; * Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, and; * Benefit the Open Internet. [Note, the definition of Open Internet is subject to a separate conversation] New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner consistent with ICANN’s mission. Action item #1: CCWG to review proposed objectives for new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation that achieved preliminary agreement by those on the call (see above). If there are any concerns or objections, members/participants are encouraged to share these with the mailing list as soon as possible. Action item #2: Staff to create list of preliminary agreements to which this agreement and previous one will be added. ii. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’ * See latest draft circulated on mailing list just prior to this meeting which aims to bring together the different versions and comments that have been received to date. * Is 'Open Internet' too identified with Net Neutrality? Consider a possible alternative wording such as Open and Interoperable Internet or open interoperable Internet. Not create an impression that this group is trying to define a term which is already being used in other contexts. Also make clear that it concerns a network of networks. Not about defining Open Internet but how fund allocation might fit into the broader scope of Open Internet. But some may just ignore this nuance so need to consider whether to use different terminology. * Some concerns expressed about some of the bullet points - CCWG to consider whether all of these belong here. Also consider making the statements more high level and moving some of the examples to a different section / annex. Providing examples may also trigger proposals that are focused on those specific examples so may not be advisable. Examples may be helpful for evaluators though - could consider not publishing the examples with call for proposals but as guidance for evaluators or as part of an FAQ for possible applicants? This discussion may be premature as materials for applicants and/or evaluators are for a later stage. Focus on examples here is to ensure that there is a common understanding on what the focus and objectives of fund allocation is. * While this group is focused on gTLDs, it should be recognized that ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perhaps this could become a neutral statement about the importance of an online presence and providing information about all kinds of TLDs? * Even though infrastructure is related to ICANN's mission it is not part of ICANN's mission so it is not clear that auction proceeds could be used appropriately on infrastructure. As such, it may not be appropriate to include reference to items that are not considered within scope of ICANN's mission. The funds shouldn't go to technology that are completely independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc., since this funding could be used against ICANN in the end, to create e.g. another logical addressing system, names and numbers. Need to look further into the question of whether infrastructure is considered consistent with ICANN's mission or not. * If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same in the USA.? There are some proactive processes available through the IRS though they may not be binding opinions. It is not just about the IRS but there is also the broader ICANN community. If there is not agreement amongst the Board and/or community whether something is within ICANN's mission, it could result in an accusation of violation of the Bylaws so there would need to be agreement amongst community and Board about what is within ICANN's mission. Risk of expanding mission statement through work of this group which may not be welcomed by all. * There is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds Action item #3: Staff to circulate google doc link to the mailing list. (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitI…) Action item #4: CCWG to review Open Internet Definition as available on the google doc link and suggest updates/changes for CCWG consideration Action item #5: Sam Einsner to review language and provide feedback on whether there are any concerns from an ICANN Org perspective iii. Review examples * Add examples that were circulated to the list by Tony. Action item #6: Staff to create google doc with all examples received to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of those examples is consistent with the proposed objectives as well as ICANN's mission. 4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next steps * See Board response received on 1 September. * Now for CCWG to consider response, if any, to the letter as well as how feedback is expected to be addressed as part of the deliberations. * Re. DOI - importance of being open and transparent in all parts of the deliberations. May require further statement / clarification. * Main issue for Board is concern about perception. CCWG needs to be transparent about any/all decisions. CCWG to consider to clearly state if they have a certain interest in the outcome when stating certain positions (for example, if you or your organisation is interested/planning to apply for funding to support infrastructure projects, make sure to make that clear when advocating to add infrastructure as an objective). * May be helpful to have a standard / regular legal briefing on COI and what constitutes a COI? * Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests. Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of the content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not sufficient, it only allows to take the next step when it is needed. This is part of the rationale of the recommendation that the Board made to this working group to establish a mechanism to deal with identified conflict of interest. * Consider further during next meeting. Action item #7: CCWG to review their respective SOI/DOIs and make sure that these are up to date. 5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the different options that have been discussed in relation to charter question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work; externally - working with already existing entities) * Xavier and Sam are working on a presentation which would outline the different options (internal / external). 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 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-…>.

2 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

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, 7 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-07sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4gkpt3chsr/<https://participate.icann.org/p4gkpt3chsr/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> 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/aWzwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie --------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 7 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday 07 September 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 everyone Sylvia Cadena:Hi everyone :) Marc Gauw:Hello from Amsterdam... Manal Ismail:Hello everyone .. Dietmar Stefitz:Hello from Valencia-Spain to all of you Wale Bakare:Hello everyone, good morning/afternoon/evening Alberto Soto:Hello from Buenos Aires Hadia Elminiawi:Hello from Cairo Ching Chiao:+1 Erika / Tony Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Hi all, sorry for being late. Login issues, seems there is an update of Adobe connect software... Sylvia Cadena:Agree with Alan. This makes a lot more sense. Manal Ismail:+1 Alan .. Sylvia Cadena:Also agree on merging # 3 with #1 Marc Gauw:+1 Ching Chiao:support Nadira AL-Araj:+1 to Alan Marika Konings:The first bullet would read in that case: "Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures that support the Internet's unique identifier systems" Maureen Hilyard:It does seem a little repetitive.. Hadia Elminiawi:+ Alan Manal Ismail:+1 Marika Wale Bakare:I seem not have full grasp of what Alan said, sorry Sylvia Cadena:Something like this Alan? "Benefit the development, distribution and evolution of the Internet's unique identifier systems, through structures or projects" Sylvia Cadena:Marika could you type yours? Marika Konings:Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures that support the Internet's unique identifier systems Tony Harris 2:marikas version sounds good Sylvia Cadena:I like the one that Marika just phrased. Stephanie Perrin:I think Marika's formulation works well. Maureen Hilyard:Do we mention the projects, because they are important too Alan Greenberg:Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and support structures/projects of the Internet's unique identifier systems Sylvia Cadena:Thanks Marika Sylvia Cadena:Thanks Alan Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Erika Marika Konings:you should be able to scroll up and down Marc Gauw:Great 1-pager, compliments, thanks !... (although I would have preferred to have the word 'secure' written in BOLD... ) Sylvia Cadena:Thanks Erika. Good to see progress for the preamble. I agree with most of it. I think the last paragrapgh needs a bit of work, but I like what you have done with our contributions. Marilyn Cade:I have a point to make about the use of the term of Open Internet. I think it is too identified with Net Neutrality. How about Open and Interoperable Internet? or even 'open interoperable Interent" Marika Konings:we will make the google doc link available after the call so you can all add your comments/edits Sylvia Cadena:+1 Alan :) Marilyn Cade:Just to clarify that I did not object to IXPs, but to funding large infrastructure projects like under sea cables. :-) Tony Harris 2:Good point, Alan Asha Hemrajani:Hello everyone, sorry to be late. Had a small crisis to deal with and then challenges with Adobe. judith hellerstein:@erika, can you also add some wording that stresses the need for open standards so that the internet remains accessible to all. I am talking specifically to the disability and specific needs community Asha Hemrajani:Please could I get a dialout Marika Konings:@Ashi - Julie will work with you on a dial-out. If you can send her a private message with your phone number? Marilyn Cade:While I respect that this group is focused on gTLDs, we should all recognize that the ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perraps this could become a neutral statement about the importance of an online presence and providing information about all kinds of T LDs Maureen Hilyard:I agree Marilyn. cctlds in developing and underserved countries also need development support. The statement needs to be inclusive of all tlds. Nadira AL-Araj: Those examples, could be could be included in most frequently asked questions. Hadia Elminiawi:however we do need to be in a way or another specific being too broad does not help the evaluators either Maureen Hilyard:Any funds should benefit the full ICANN community. It is very important to the stability of the Internet, as the ccTLDs build infrastructure at the national level Sylvia Cadena:Yes, that is why I am saying not to include the examples on a preamble. The preamble helps with a framework. But having the examples listed together so none of us missed the importance of the examples already provided on previous surveys Samantha Eisner:@Erika, yes. We haven't discussed internally, but I can give some of my impressions on it Erika Mann:Thanj you Sam! Nadira AL-Araj:It is also possible to attach an elaboration document on the "philosophical" point of view of the CCWG-AP point of view to the open Internet Daniel Dardailler:+1 on using "network of networks" judith hellerstein:+interoperable and standards based. as this works to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities Daniel Dardailler:no strong opinion on Open vs open and interoperability Internet Daniel Dardailler:s/interoperabilty/interoperable Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Marilyn Marc Gauw:Do we agree ? Arsene Tungali:I would love to read Marilyn's comment in a document. Thanks for sharing your thoughts judith hellerstein:do we have a link to the google doc? Daniel Dardailler:I agree that our descrition removes all ambiguity wrt NN Nadira AL-Araj:@Judith after the meeting we will have the link Joke Braeken:correct Nadira. Following the call, we will make the google doc link available to allow for further edits / comments. Marilyn Cade:Why would this group want to change the definition of network of networks? Are we "newbies"? That is sort of a joke. Erika Mann:Judith - yes, Marika send it but we can send it again judith hellerstein:thanks all Marilyn Cade:Thanks. Daniel Dardailler:FYI, the Internet technical reaction to DOI is: why is this needed since we have URLs ? so I doubt ICANN should fund it.. Wale Bakare:Internet itself is a network of international networks, but as Open Internet is about inter-operability and standard of internet. Sylvia Cadena:Just add what you think it is missing when the google doc is shared Sylvia Cadena:sound is breaking up :( Nadira AL-Araj:Hi Asha Wale Bakare:There are components of the standards which would include tranport and application layers protocols Marc Gauw:@Samantha: If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same in the USA. Erika Mann:Can't you hear me? Maureen Hilyard:No audio from Erika Xavier Calvez 2:WE can hear you Sam Erika Mann:I hear you Sam Sylvia Cadena:I can't hear Erika, I can't hear Erika though judith hellerstein:I can hear erika now Nadira AL-Araj:Maybe it is not clear that the definition of this term is needed in the context of ICANN Marc Gauw:@Samantha, could you answer my question ? Marc Gauw:@Samantha: If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same in the USA. Samantha Eisner:@Marc, there are some proactive processes available through the IRS though they may not be binding opinions. Samantha Eisner:HOWEVER Julie Bisland:mark, please let me know if you'd like a dialout for audio Sylvia Cadena:If the idea is to change open for another term that is inclusive and open -no pun intended- we need some help with the creative terminology. It is quite a challenge to beat what the word open means Daniel Dardailler:In case my mike doesn't work: my comment to follow-up on the infrastructure-in-scope question is that the funds shouldn't go to technology that are completely independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc., since this funding could be used against ICANN in the end, to create e.g. another logical addressing system, names and numbers. Maureen Hilyard:@Sylvia, perhaps inclusive and accessible? Marc Gauw:OK, thanks Hadia Elminiawi:We could say "From the aforementioned broad description and for the purpose of the work of this ccWG Open Internet will be defined (or understood) as...." Stephanie Perrin:fading out Julie Bisland:@Daniel: line is fading in and out. judith hellerstein:@maureen. yes I like that term Maureen Hilyard:@Judith, if it is deemed not appropriate to use "Open" Wale Bakare:It is a bit complicated to strike a balance as majority seems to favour infrastructure-based against the ICANN's mission and core businesses. I can see IXP is a infrastructure. Hadia Elminiawi:In this case we shall not be offering a defintion for the open internet but rather saying that this is the definition that we shall be using Wale Bakare:IMHO, we should just stick to open internet definition that embodies Application and Transport layers Julf Helsingius:Do we really want to go into the layers issue? Samantha Eisner:@Sylvia, my comment is not dependent on who manages the distribution of the funds Wale Bakare:@Julf, I would think so because of ICANN mission and core businesses Samantha Eisner:there is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds Julf Helsingius:@Wale either it should be "open Internet", or "numbers and names" Wale Bakare:ICANN would not want to fund infrastructure projects Julf Helsingius:ICANN could want to fund infrastructure that supprts, let's say, a wider net of root servers Wale Bakare:Thanks, @Julf. Please, are there examples of "wider net of root servers"? Wale Bakare:I mean different to DNS systems? Sylvia Cadena:That will be great to have Samantha. I have not seen that presentation. Sylvia Cadena:Your voice was breaking up so I am not sure if I understood correctly. Marika Konings:@Sylvia - please also see agenda item 5. This is an open action item. Julf Helsingius:@Wale That was just an example I thought of, but there are of course alternatives for DNS being tested Sylvia Cadena:Thanks Marika! Sylvia Cadena:That is what the preamble said. Marilyn Cade:ICANN cannot be funding other DNS systems. That is crazy. Do we belive in a single interoperable root? Has that changed? I recall when the Alt Root guys showed up at ICANN and we had to really address this idea and we did, as ICANN the community. BUT, we believe in a single interoperable root, not alt roots. Otherwise, ICANN does not exist. Wale Bakare:Agreed. I think Security, Stability of DNS-based projects would receive 100% support of ICANN, i think Hadia Elminiawi:totally agree Marika , I understand because I was there from the beginning but the document as it reads looks as if we want to define the term Stephanie Perrin:I agree with what Alan is saying. People don't look up definitions. Asha Hemrajani:yes Wale - those areas would receive strong support Maureen Hilyard:+1 Alan Sylvia Cadena:Yes Alan, very important. Wale Bakare:Thanks, @Asha Manal Ismail:Agree Alan .. so probably not a definition of open Internet but rather where open Internet intesrsects with/ relates to ICANN mission .. Ching Chiao:sounds good Marika Manal Ismail:*examples of where .... Arsene Tungali:Good point Erica about examples Marc Gauw:Erika, lets archieve your clear clarification of the COI part of the board-letter ! :-) Marilyn Cade:I read all the Interest statements of all Board members, as part of the due diligence that I consider important to do as a BC member. Many Board members have "interests" and I am not sure that I think that all of the Liaisons, or even the Board members are fully recusing themselves on decisions that they already know is a conflict. If you participated in contributing to auction funds, of if you are a c contracted party that is asking for a refund, then I do think that you have a real conflict of interest. Jon Nevett:semi-annual Samantha Eisner:@Marilyn, if there are Board level issues you'd like to raise, please contact me and John so we can take a look at those Sylvia Cadena:The group is asking for updates of CoI and DoI on every call with the reminder to update it on the wiki. Nadira AL-Araj:What about looking again of the requirments of the DOI form and edit it accordingly Ching Chiao:Thank you Asha for the clarification Xavier Calvez 2:Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests. Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of the content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not sufficient, it only allows to take the next step when it is needed. This is part of the rationale of the recommendation that the Board made to this working group to establish a mechanism to deal with identified conflict of interest. Julie Bisland:The next CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call will be held on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Daniel Dardailler:bye Marc Gauw:Thanks, bye bye Nadira AL-Araj:Thank you all Ching Chiao:Thank you everyone Joke Braeken:thank you all. Bye. Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Bye all Manal Ismail:Thank you all .. Bye .. Sylvia Cadena:Bye, thank you all Maureen Hilyard:Thanks Erica bye all Asha Hemrajani:Thank you and bye Wale Bakare:thanks. Bye all!

1 0

For your review - updated version open internet definition / description
by Marika Konings Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that. However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could just allow ICANN itself to oversee. There is a difference between being prudent and being wise. Alan At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote: >I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked >if this runs off the tracks. > >Tony Harris > >On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon ><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > >I agree to a point Erica. > > > >And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment, > > > >I think what the crux of the issue is is that >many people have seen the potential impact of >the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on >the impact that that may have. However what we >have lost sight of is the fact that that fund >pales in comparison to the value that ICANN >derives from being secure and stable. In my own >personal opinion any steps by any groups to >make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of >its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community. > > > >We have just exited a very stressful and >impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest >control of ICANN to the community, and one of >the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a >limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to >everything and anything ICANN does. To many >across ICANN was one of the hardest fought >battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN >community immediately put that back at risk (And >yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds >outside of the mission would do that) and >threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the >potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain >from not doing that and having a stable >coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than >any impact the auction funds could have. > > > >If in fact we are going to reopen the mission >discussion we should seriously look at putting >the auction fund in a high interest bearing >account for 10 years and come back to this topic >when the community is ready for another >discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to. > > > >From: Erika Mann [mailto:erika@erikamann.com] >Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 >To: Daniel Dardailler <<mailto:danield@w3.org>danield(a)w3.org> >Cc: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email>; James Gannon ><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net>; ><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP > > > >Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All - > > > >personally I believe we open a can of worms if >we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find >a solution. We will only postpone the decision >and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund. > > > >I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic >solution, a solution that will satisfy the >'mission statement' concept but will on the >other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the >table to allow project evaluators in the future >to utilize maximum flexibilities. > > > >The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into >a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators >to understand the broader framing of the mission >statement within a defined Open Internet concept. > > > >BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget >allows to support truly important projects, for >example in the security and software area. And, >so much more could be done in certain training >areas, for example DNS software engineering, in >particular if one would like to see greater >participation in/from developing countries. > > > >Thank you for your comments! > > > >Kind regards, > >Erika > > > >On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel >Dardailler <<mailto:danield@w3.org>danield(a)w3.org> wrote: > >On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote: > >I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a >paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to >support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position. > > >Is the current financial position of ICANN >really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do >in support of its mission ? I was under the >impression that ICANN's budget was healthy >enough to implement its mission optimally today, >with also a large untouched pot coming from the >new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly). > >That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support >the mission with use of the auction proceeds. > > >How is it different to give away the funds to >the ICANN community (for projects aligned with >the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the >board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ? > >Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept >to delegate some of their responsibility to >implement the ICANN mission to some external >grantees ? Not without a clear control process >IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to >manage the granting process itself (adding an >intermediary foundation would raise too high the >risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission). > > > > > >Best, Jon > > >On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon ><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > >Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of >the response! But I think what the board is >saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few >times) is that the funds are restricted by the >ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look >at disbursements outside of that, the mission >and core values must be changed, which being >very honest is not something that will happen in >the short or medium term future and certainly >not within the lifetime of this CCWG. > >-James > >-----Original Message----- >From: ><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler >Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 >To: Erika Mann <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com> >Cc: <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP > >Thanks Erika. > >To me, the important bit is this one: > ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the > restrictions that the enumerated mission > statement places on the outcomes of the > CCWGâs work, that is a fundamental question > for the ICANN community to resolve, as the > ICANN Board is holding the organization to the > mission that the ICANN community developed > through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process" > >I think our current discussions on Open Internet >description shows a consensus in our group wrt >to the mission enumerated statement being too >limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee. > >If we can get consensus on this point, then we >can start making a case in front of the ICANN >community that the auction funds are special for various reasons: > > - they are supposed to be used outside of the > ICANN regular operational budget, but are > legally restricted to be spent only on these > operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. > - they are supposed to be used for the good > of the Internet (which we are turning into "in > support of the Open Internet"), which is a > concept not limited to the ICANN mission > - they are a one time event and extending the > scope of their granting beyond the ICANN > limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. > - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its >mission) to do a scope extension for these funds > - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: > "Preserve and enhance the administration of the > DNS and the operational stability, reliability, > security, global interoperability, resilience, > and openness of the DNS and the Internet" > covers our vision of scope extension pretty > well since it can be read as "Preserve and > enhance .. the operational stability, > reliability, security, global interoperability, > resilience, and openness of ... the Internet". > > >On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote: > >Dear All - > >herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. > >We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG >AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will >discuss the Board letter then for the first time. > >Best, >Erika > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: STEVE CROCKER ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >To: Erika Mann ><<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com>, >Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>chiao(a)brandma.co>, >Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Cc: Steve Crocker ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, >Marika Konings ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org>, >Icann-board ICANN <<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>icann-board(a)icann.org>, >Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@apc.org>avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" ><<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board Operations ><<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton ><<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner ><<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, >Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>lauren.allison(a)icann.org> > >Dear Erika and Ching, > >Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the >Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) >in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. > >On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in >our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. >Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a >letter including additional acknowledgements and requested >clarifications. > >Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. > >Steve >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list ><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds(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 >_______________________________________________ >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:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GEJ3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+NLP7WK5p >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

9 11

Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by Erika Mann Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Dear All - herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. Best, Erika ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> Dear Erika and Ching, Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. Steve

18 28

Proposed Agenda CCWG-AP Meeting on Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG WG meeting on Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI 3. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see updated mind map attached) * Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives (see overview document attached) * Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’ (see updated overview document attached) * Review examples 4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next steps (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/Board%20Reply%20C…) 5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the different options that have been discussed in relation to charter question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work; externally - working with already existing entities) 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 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-…>.

3 3

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Hello, Actually I do believe that the funds can serve the global Internet community even as we stick within ICANN mission. I don't think we need to go out of ICANN mission/core values to have a more global reach on this. That mission itself is good enough to achieve our objectives. I think we just need to list what we want to use it for and hear views on why/whether certain use cases are out of ICANN mission. Though ICANN mission has a scope, that scope is in itself broad enough IMO. That said, as I have already raised in the past, there is nothing wrong with having ICANN staff manage the funds so long as it's based on whatever mechanism that we've developed. I do hope that option is still on the table. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 11:27 AM, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Yes and no, the community is responsible for setting the mission and core values through the approval of the fundamental bylaws. Interpretations and application of fiduciary duty to the mission is the responsibility of the board. So changing the bylaws to allow for an exception would be the only way to facilitate such a situation, and that is something that I don’t think the community would or should support. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:12 To: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; Anthony Harris < anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 11:59, James Gannon wrote: > I don’t agree, a 'one time' exception sets a precedent, True, but less so if the context that created the exception is itself a one-timer. > and personally > Im not sure if its even legally possible to knowingly violate the > mission even if it’s a 'one time' action. From what I understood in previous legal discussions, the overall mission alignment is something that the ICANN community itself is responsible for evaluating, and not the legal auditor checking the accounts (who most probably can't make the difference between what ICANN, ITU, IETF or IEEE do for the Internet) > > -J > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] > Sent: 05 September 2017 10:53 > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Cc: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com>; James Gannon > <james(a)cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP > > +1 on all Alan wrote. > > I personally don't think we need to embark on a mission change > crusade, which I agree would take years, but that we need to convince > the ICANN community (and the board) that the funds being a one time > shot and having been promised to be used for the good of the Internet > and not for ICANN, we want to extend the scope of its granting to more > than the mission proper and consider things that are in line with the > first commitment of ICANN in the bylaws, to support Open Internet > development. > Since ICANN clearly depends on the Open Internet (e.g. tcp/http/html) > to succeed, I don't see why the community would think doing this > one-time exception would endanger ICANN's mission over the long term. > > > > > On 2017-09-05 02:50, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I do not think that anyone is proposing that we do ANYTHING that will >> endanger ICANN, and we all need to be diligent on that. >> >> However, it is far from clear that we do that by taking on projects >> that ICANN itself could not within its mission. If all that we can do >> is CLEARLY within its mission, then we may as well just put the money >> into ICANN's operational budget and save ourselves a lot of work in >> this CCWG, and a lot of cost administering projects that we could >> just allow ICANN itself to oversee. >> >> There is a difference between being prudent and being wise. >> >> Alan >> >> At 04/09/2017 05:04 PM, Anthony Harris wrote: >> >>> I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if >>> this runs off the tracks. >>> >>> Tony Harris >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon >>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I agree to a point Erica. >>> >>> And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment, >>> >>> I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen >>> the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas >>> on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of >>> is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that >>> ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal >>> opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to >>> act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed >>> back on by the community. >>> >>> We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we >>> battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the >>> greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into >>> ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To >>> many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And >>> we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk >>> (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the >>> mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work >>> for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not >>> doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much >>> greater than any impact the auction funds could have. >>> >>> If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should >>> seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest >>> bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the >>> community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and >>> where the funds can be disbursed to. >>> >>> From: Erika Mann [ mailto:erika@erikamann.com] >>> Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 >>> To: Daniel Dardailler <danield(a)w3.org> >>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email>; James Gannon >>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net >; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>> >>> Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All - >>> >>> personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring >>> is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the >>> decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the >>> fund. >>> >>> I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution >>> that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the >>> other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow >>> project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities. >>> >>> The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory >>> paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of >>> the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept. >>> >>> BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support >>> truly important projects, for example in the security and software >>> area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for >>> example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to >>> see greater participation in/from developing countries. >>> >>> Thank you for your comments! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Erika >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield(a)w3.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote: >>> >>> I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is >>> a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do >>> to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position. >>> >>> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to >>> what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the >>> impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its >>> mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from >>> the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand >>> correctly). >>> >>> That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to >>> support the mission with use of the auction proceeds. >>> >>> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community >>> (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back >>> to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the >>> community ? >>> >>> Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of >>> their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external >>> grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means >>> ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself >>> (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of >>> funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission). >>> >>> Best, Jon >>> >>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net >>>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I >>> think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a >>> few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and >>> core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the >>> mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is >>> not something that will happen in the short or medium term future >>> and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG. >>> >>> -James >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org [ >>> mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel >>> Dardailler >>> Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 >>> To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com> >>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>> >>> Thanks Erika. >>> >>> To me, the important bit is this one: >>> ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the >>> enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWGâ€™s >>> work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to >>> resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the >>> mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing >>> ICANN Accountability process" >>> >>> I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a >>> consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being >>> too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee. >>> >>> If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a >>> case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are >>> special for various reasons: >>> >>> - they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular >>> operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on >>> these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in >>> itself. >>> - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which >>> we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a >>> concept not limited to the ICANN mission >>> - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their >>> granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the >>> ICANN mission and role itself. >>> - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and >>> its >>> mission) to do a scope extension for these funds >>> - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance >>> the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, >>> reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and >>> openness of the DNS and the Internet" >>> covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be >>> read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, >>> reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... >>> the Internet". >>> >>> On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote: >>> >>> Dear All - >>> >>> herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. >>> >>> We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG >>> AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will >>> discuss the Board letter then for the first time. >>> >>> Best, >>> Erika >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: STEVE CROCKER < steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >>> Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>> To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao >>> <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org > >>> Cc: Steve Crocker < steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < >>> marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org >>> >, Avri Doria <avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" >>> < sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board Operations < >>> Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton < >>> sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner < >>> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org >>> > >>> >>> Dear Erika and Ching, >>> >>> Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the >>> Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) >>> in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. >>> >>> On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in >>> our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. >>> Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a >>> letter including additional acknowledgements and requested >>> clarifications. >>> >>> Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. >>> >>> Steve >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Content-Disposition: inline >>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>> >>> >> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:vo3IVYPABTcT10thpajRvBKGdFYDlSZocomP7m1IVIhVcOR9GE >> J >> 3JGPVN9BxpGbVBsLFRn9TLMYstZIK9NMkR9vn4c9uiYuKGxWVUaC9RJ3AJDdwoRHP4eU+N >> LP7WK5p >>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >>> >>> >> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(7501 >> 0 >> 3)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400 >> 1 >> 25200095); >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] 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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

6 5

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by Daniel Dardailler Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

On 2017-09-04 23:48, John R. Levine wrote: >> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to >> what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the >> impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its >> mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from >> the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand >> correctly). > > Not really. ICANN's operating budget is fully committed. There is > indeed a lot of unspent new gTLD application money, but it's a whole > separate can of worms. It's not ours to spend and since ICANN said > the price was set to cover their costs, the obvious and ethical thing > to do will be to refund the excess to the applicants. I kind of agree with the ethical part (although I haven't read the contract those applicants signed and what was promised in writing) but is it really going to be obvious to refund hundreds of applicants, some of them potentially gone as a business ? > > R's, > John > > PS: >> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for >> projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the >> board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ? > > Well, actually, it's the board's money to give away, not ours. We're > just offering them advice.

9 22

first edition quarterly newsletter CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Joke Braeken Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear all, This is to inform you that the first edition of the quarterly newsletter by the CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds has been published. You will be able to consult the August 2017 edition of the newsletter on the group’s wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Newsletters , or find a copy in attachment. The group’s newsletters are aimed at keeping chartering organisations and others interested up to date regarding the current status of the work by this group. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)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

1 0