February 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Notes & action items : CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken March 6, 2019

March 6, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 (14:00 UTC) Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS 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 . 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed Chair stresses the importance of continued participation by group members. 3. Finalize review of charter question #1 input and confirm CCWG agreements(see updated template attached) Charter question #1. * item #1 staff and leadership team captured the conversation from last call, labeled as "CCWG Agreement". This will help us going through all the comments, what we agreed to do, and after the group has reviewed all comments, we can come up with a Work Plan. some parts can be done in parallel. pro-con overview of the different mechanisms Sarah Berg assisted with. Cost-benefit analysis would hopefully help the CCWG in making its deliberations. Marilyn: low cost sometimes equals low quality. Questioning the idea that icann org has the competency to do this. Do not spend more time on a cost-benefit analysis: there was not significant enough request for that. Would be a big conflict of interest. Erika: cost-benefit analysis would need to be done across the different mechanisms: A, B and C. Topic was indeed raised by only 1 person, but raised by the CCWG many times in the past. Helps us to understand how ICANNorg would approach this. One question would be: how do you see the engagement from currently employed ICANN people with regard to mechanism A, B, and C? in all 3 mechanisms, there would be some kind of engagement by ICANN, because of the oversight and legal and fiduciary obligations. Does the group need more time to reflect on this? Marilyn: posing a question as you posed it, is much much more neutral and does not prejudice the expertise of ICANN org on broader issues. Ching: agrees with what Erika pointed out. If we make a recommendation on C, and if in the implementation phase the group decided to use the money on 2 to 3 projects, the cost management seems to be much lower than if we are recommending mechanism A, where the implementation would say the funds are distributed to many smaller projects. Often we talk about an implementation problem. Ching suggests to think about some of the scenarios, that would help us in formulating a recommendation. Allan: suggestion for the funds to be used for a small number of projects. That would be poor judgement, since we talk about a large amount of money. The risk factor for putting this in a a limited number of projects would be too high. Robert Guerra: there are different cost/benefits for the different options. in terms of setting up a foundation - there's not only a startup cost (legal, accounting processes) , an ongoing cost (administration and oversight), and close-down costs.that's a large admin cost that should, instead, be dedicated to actual projects Becky Burr (Board): The risk level clearly needs to be assessed, but the outcome can't be determined in theory - it depends on what the projects contemplated are Erika: let's focus. Are we doing a neutral, cost-benefit analysis across all mechanisms? completely neutral and objective, light-touch and high-level. Action item #1: Leadership team to prepare a first draft in a google doc of the request that would go to ICANN org regarding what the expectations are of a cost-benefit analysis. CCWG members to participate in the drafting. * Item #2 requires further conversation. Element that is independent of whatever mechanism is chosen. Not necessarily dependent on A, B, or C. But rather depends on the role of the ICANN community. do we need to include the role of the Board in each of these? Erika prefers not to do so. Role of the Board is very important, but we are responding to comments received from the community. We should distinguish between those 2 points. We should define the role of the Board, but not here. Evaluation point: role of the Board. Becky added that the Board's fiduciary role is established as a matter of law. Board made it clear that it is not involved in substantive evaluation of individual evaluations. summarise all elements regarding the role of the Board, to make sure nothing is overlooked. The Board still has a role to evaluate if bigger grants are being distributed. Action item #2 template/overview to be prepared regarding the input received from the Board. To do a cross-check towards the end of the process Action item #3: to be clarified/specified: community/communities & role/roles * Agreement 3: keep open all 3 options for now. Re-evaluate at the end of the review of the public comments. * Agreement 5 Group to formulate questions to ICANN org or Board to ask for further clarifications, based on leadership recommendations Recommendation, based on what ALAC recommended. if a third party would cooperate with ICANN on a mechanism, the COI for the 3rd party shall be evaluated. The leadership suggested whether the COI should be explored beyond the current recommendation. Do we need to do even more, in case of the cooperation with a 3rd party? * Item number 10, page 6 Was not yet discussed during the last meeting. comment from RySG. CCWG should give further consideration to which mechanism best reflects transparency and accountability criteria. Should the funds be limited to charitable organisations? Leadership recommendation being displayed in the AC room. Marilyn feels we need examples. We cannot rely on governmental examples. We also need examples from the private sector that fund NGOs., e.g. PIR, ISOC, not just the European Commission. Allan: any mechanism will be not accountable, unless we would design it like that. Status of charitable organisation is very difficult to obtain. There should be no such requirement. Note that legal / fiduciary requirements info can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/CbDRAw Samantha: Many of the questions raised today, are included in the memo. Action item #3 Group to review the memo on the legal and fiduciary constraints. Staff and leadership team to prepare a template, to ensure all answers provided are easily trackable. if the CCWG notices that an answer is missing, the leadership team will contact Sam Eisner for further input. question by Erika: is an unincorporated entity able to apply for funding? Samantha: very specific issue. Would a grouping of people be able to apply? That depends also on the legal limitations and where they are from. That is not a question we can provide a good answer to now, since there are too many unknown factors at this stage. Ching: Social enterprises make an impact too. Do not limit ourselves to charitable organisations. Samantha Eisner: There is broader discussion in the legal/fiduciary memo on the types of due diligence that can be done over an entity to make sure they are qualified to receive funds. I think that "charitable entity" might be some form of short hand here to reflect that need. There are legal limitations on the types of entities to which that ICANN as a not-for-profit can give funds. 4. Commence review of: a. Charter question #2 input (see template attached) overarching question: what / if anything / needs to be changed to the recommendations, based on the input provided? * comment 3 short recap provided of the comment, to help guide the conversation. full comment is on page number 5. CCWG to consider whether the objectives are overly broad in light of ICANN's mission? Marilyn: important to understand what the concern is about. Marika: the full detail of the comment is in the document further below. important to review the full comment, to facilitate the conversation, a short summary was provided. Alan: "it should meet these criteria, but we are always constrained between the mission and the bylaws. "editorial correction. as a result of copy/paste it got lumped together. Acton item #4 review the language to see whether it is overly broad, although the CCWG noted that the restraining factor of the ICANN's mission is already referenced. Also consider changing 'and' to 'or' to make clear that one of the objectives needs to be met, not all three. Jonathan: what is the process for deciding what these examples are going to be? and wherther they are within the remit of the bylaws? Erika: This is just an example list for our own guidance, to help us understand what falls within the mission and meets the bylaws requirements. This is nt a template. Decision is up to the implementation team, future evaluators. This is not our role. Comments made in relation to the examples provided in an annex. They are currently part of a separate section. List will be reviewed by the group at a later stage: is the list complete and accurate? * comment number 4 from RySG would work around universal acceptance fall within and support ICANN's mission? Marilyn: we received guidance from the Board that we should take into account. We should also take into account other guidance received, e.g. legal or finance. The Auction funds are not to compete with or replace the icann budget. UA is one example. engagement and participation is another example. We should be careful that we are not replacing or supplementing the ICANN budget. Daniel Dardailler: I think UA is definitively in scope, and the fact that there's currently an envelop to support it coming from the ICANN budget is just an artifact of timing, i.e. it was needed as a support action before the auctions fuding are available Action item #5: postpone the discussion and continue the debate on comment number 4 charter question number 2 either online, and/or at the meeting in Kobe. b. Charter question #3 input (see template attached) 5. Review expected attendance for CCWG meetings in Kobe (see https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi) Not sufficient support for the second timeslot in Kobe (Wednesday : 17:00-18:30). only 6 people indicated they can participate. Responses to the doodle poll displayed in the AC room. Does the group want to keep the 2 slots? Preference to keep 2 slots. 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Kobe meeting) First meeting will be on Monday Action item #6: Group members to review the templates ahead of the meeting, in order to be able to have an informed discussion in Kobe 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

4 4

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Wednesday, 27 February 2019 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 28, 2019

Feb. 28, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-27feb19-e… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3dxst95jep/<https://participate.icann.org/p3dxst95jep/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=61a9e3c01d576e9b…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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/PJgWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Please share with your groups / ICANN64 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Terri Agnew Feb. 27, 2019

Feb. 27, 2019

Dear all, GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN64 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_gnsobriefi…> If you prefer to download individual sections, you can do so by visiting this page [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_policybrie…>. The policy briefing is intended to facilitate your preparation for ICANN64. Please feel free to share the link with your respective groups and anyone else that may be interested: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO/status/1100428245936291841 Happy reading! Best Regards, Terri

1 0

Proposed agenda and documents for your review - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Marika Konings Feb. 26, 2019

Feb. 26, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 27 February at 14.00 UTC. Please note that the template for the review of comments in relation to charter question #1 has been updated with high level notes reflecting the discussion during the last meeting as well as with a proposed CCWG agreement on how to address the input. The idea is that through the recording of the CCWG agreements as it progresses its review of comments received, we are able to clearly document the work that is remaining to get to the Final Report. As a reminder, please remember to fill out the doodle poll in relation to your participation in the CCWG meetings in Kobe: https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Wednesday 27 February at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates 3. Finalize review of charter question #1 input and confirm CCWG agreements (see updated template attached) 4. Commence review of: * Charter question #2 input (see template attached) * Charter question #3 input (see template attached) 5. Review expected attendance for CCWG meetings in Kobe (see https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi) 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Kobe 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

ICANN64: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Feb. 26, 2019

Feb. 26, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings' team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN64 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you've added all your chosen meetings to "My Schedule" go to Export. * Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. * Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg>) will provide audio streaming only, Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for "ICANN64" in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Kobe to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

3 2

REMINDER: Doodle: CCWG Auction Proceeds / participant attendance for ICANN64 Kobe
by Terri Agnew Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Dear all, Please complete the doodle for the two proposed meeting times at ICANN64 Kobe. Please note for each date there are 2 options: 'will participate in person', 'will participate remotely' and a third option of 'will not participate in any session nor remotely'. Scheduled meetings: Monday, 11 March 13:30-15:00 local time Wednesday, 13 March 17:00-15:00 local time To see which other meetings are scheduled at the same time that may affect your availability, please see: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings [64.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__64.schedule.icann.org_…> Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=Dw…>

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Doodle: CCWG Auction Proceeds / participant attendance for ICANN64 Kobe
by Sylvia Cadena Feb. 24, 2019

Feb. 24, 2019

I will not be in Kobe, but have added my name to join remotely. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 22 February 2019 at 11:52 pm To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Doodle: CCWG Auction Proceeds / participant attendance for ICANN64 Kobe Dear all, Please complete the doodle for the two proposed meeting times at ICANN64 Kobe. Please note for each date there are 2 options: ‘will participate in person’, ‘will participate remotely’ and a third option of ‘will not participate in any session nor remotely’. Scheduled meetings: Monday, 11 March 13:30-15:00 local time Wednesday, 13 March 17:00-15:00 local time To see which other meetings are scheduled at the same time that may affect your availability, please see: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Doodle: CCWG Auction Proceeds / participant attendance for ICANN64 Kobe
by Terri Agnew Feb. 23, 2019

Feb. 23, 2019

Dear all, Please complete the doodle for the two proposed meeting times at ICANN64 Kobe. Please note for each date there are 2 options: 'will participate in person', 'will participate remotely' and a third option of 'will not participate in any session nor remotely'. Scheduled meetings: Monday, 11 March 13:30-15:00 local time Wednesday, 13 March 17:00-15:00 local time To see which other meetings are scheduled at the same time that may affect your availability, please see: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

6 8

PLEASE SHARE: ICANN64 Prep Week Announcement
by Terri Agnew Feb. 14, 2019

Feb. 14, 2019

Hello all, Please find below the announcement of the “ICANN64 Prep Week” published on the ICANN website which includes the link to register for Pre-ICANN64 Policy Update Webinar as well as other webinars in the week. Please share it with your groups and mailing lists as appropriate. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-14-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Kind regards, Terri ICANN64 Prep Week ICANN org is piloting a new initiative called Prep Week to consolidate all pre-ICANN Public Meeting webinars into one week. Starting with ICANN64, Prep Week will streamline the pre-meeting experience, so deeper conversations can be had in the ICANN meeting sessions. There are four webinars scheduled for ICANN64 Prep Week. The org will present updates on the community's work. Wednesday, 27 February 16:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Webinar. Topics include: · General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) · ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 · The latest update and progress on various ICANN Reviews · The next steps on WorkStream 2 recommendations Wednesday, 27 February 23:00 UTC | Contractual Compliance Update Webinar. Topics include updates on: · Registrar compliance · Registry compliance · The Registry Contractual Compliance Audit underway Thursday, 28 February 16:00 UTC | Policy Update Webinar. Topics include updates on activities of various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Thursday, 28 February 23:00 UTC | Finance/Operating Plan and Budget Planning Webinar. Topics include: · Key dates in the ICANN Planning process and cycle · An overview of the ICANN64 Finance/Planning Session Please register and submit any questions via this form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…> by Friday, 22 February 2019. The webinars will be in English. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/kobe64-prep-week>. With this new initiative, we not only hope to improve community preparation, but also to increase awareness of cross-community and high-interest topics and enhance briefings and readout sessions.

1 0

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Wednesday, 13 February 2019 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 14, 2019

Feb. 14, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-13feb19-e…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p38z59znc9v/<https://participate.icann.org/p38z59znc9v/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6dd357a7ea15fdd3…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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/OZgWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 13 February 2019
by Joke Braeken Feb. 13, 2019

Feb. 13, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Joke Braeken = = = = = = = Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 13 February 2019 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the cotent 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. 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Feedback received on recommendations made by the leadership team in relation to the public comment review tool * Group member commented that the leadership recommendations are not always clear: "invitation to check" for instance. How does the group comment on this? Chair clarified that technical checks are involved, in this case. Check needed, to see whether we overlooked something. quick summary provided by staff of the comments received to date. Any further clarifications by the commenters? have we missed out something? * conflict of interest: not clear that the COI for ICANN will be sufficient for managing allocating reviewing fund distribution. That will need further consideration. Action item #1: staff to verify: have we sufficiently covered the COI issue? * The group’s report, which was sent out for public comments, never explicitly refers to the community review. e.g. CIRA, Nominet, SIDN. Outsourcing to experts versus insourcing for community review. A group member suggested staff intentionally overlooked this. Chair mentioned we may have overlooked it, but that was not on purpose. Several comments were received on this aspect, and the group will address this concern in a later phase. * Some commentors raise entirely new ideas. in case the proposal is too new, the group might decide not to address that idea. e.g. different baskets depending on the type of project. 4. Commence review of input received on recommendation #1 1. review updated template * The groups’ recommendation was mainly focused on A and B, but C was still included as well. Some commenters suggested keeping option C. Someone suggested to neglect A totally. * The group reviews the comments and the recommendations from the leadership team. We may have to send new questions to ICANN Org and the Board. e.g. independence is a topic that came up very often in the comment period. * a lightweight funding processes, similiar to what CIRA AND nominet have, is worth reviewing in more detail * A group member expressed a very strong preference for community review, and mentions that proposal number A should not be in there. ALAC was divided on this particular issue. Those who were against A (within ALAC) supported Elliot in that the feeling was that ICANN Org should not be involved in the decisions that this group has spent so much time on ensuring that they were the responsibility of the community Action item #2: Group to go back to the experts (e.g. nominet), and ask further clarifications on the in-house review model. To verify how to incorporate the community review into the mechanisms. 1. deliberate on suggestions from commenters and leadership recommendations * Item 1 what does "effective and efficient" mean? cost-benefit analysis must take this into account * Item 2 Based on today's discussion, see how community involvement fits into the recommendations: how can the community have an advisory role for each of the mechnisms? Suggestion by the chair to send a question to be sent to SO/AC leadership, for them to have a discussion in their own groups.This suggestion was not supported by one group member, because reaching out to the chairs does not provide you with the full input. There are sub-units for some SO/ACS, and you risk bypassing the community. * Item 3 confusion between item #2 and #3. number 3 says to enhance option A. Item #2 says to focus on B and C. We are giving a confusing message here. Action item #3: leadership team to further clarify its recommendation on item #1, and send the updated version to the group for comments. Action item #4: Leadership team to combine the recommendations on item #2 and item #3. Make sure to keep option A, B, C in all iterations. * item 4 go back to original recommendation, especially B. Do we need to re-evaluate option B? no further comments received * item 5 Action item #5: The group to formulate questions to ICANN org or Board to ask for further clarifications, based on leadership recommendations * item 6 Chair mentions it will be hard for the community to evaluate grants and make judgements. Conflict of Interest topic might be too high. Maybe have a first evaluation by an independent panel, based on the criteria, and then have the evaluation done by the community. examples the group came up to guide the discussions in this group, to see what would be within ICANN's mission. difference between advising in an independent process, and being engaged in the process. The BC comments proposed an independent process but accepted an advisory role, but not the community to review or approve, but to advise at a high level related to the mission; help to provide insights on the kinds of grants -- but not the actual grants. Community member mentioned his involvement in a process for evaluation projects within European Commission. Project reviewers need to be always independent. The criteria that the evaluators need to analyse for each project, come from experts. Those criteria need to come from an icann community group, and that is where the consistency with ICANN's mission is being evaluated. Action item #6 Leadership team to reword the first bullet point: should be more general in advising and engagement. Review mechanism is to be moved to the second bullet point. Review still to be defined. * item 7 the group has an understanding on this point. No further comments received 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting. Next steps: rephrasing of the leadership recommendations, and based on the discussions during a leadership call, send the next version for review to the CCWG. Action item #7 Staff to verify when the examples will be addressed. Next meeting: Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 13, 2019

Feb. 13, 2019

I have reviewed all document and make my points saving it with - VS at the name, as attached. Just in case I will not arrive timely for our meeting tomorrow, all my points are written there. Thank you, Kisses 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 21:24 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item Reminder: Action item #1: Group to revise the public comment review tool (see attached) and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 09:28 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019 Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Joke Braeken = = = = = = = Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019 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. 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Proposed approach for reviewing / addressing public comments: a. Present proposed approach i. Acknowledge those comments that are in support of the proposed recommendations or recommend minor updates ii. Leadership team to put forward proposed approach for those comments that are either new or differ from the proposed recommendations iii. CCWG to review items in category 2 and flag for which the proposed approach is not supported or where an alternative is needed iv. CCWG to implement proposed approach as agreed upon under 3 b. CCWG comments / input on proposed approach c. Deliberate on comments identified as requiring further deliberation, as an example. · Before going to the Public Comment Review Tool, let's capture what was discussed during our last meeting: we ended with the public comments. We received some feedback that the initial report was not emphasising that the community should be reviewing the model, and decide on the structure of the auction proceeds. Some new ideas were raised as well. Leadership and staff analysed the comments, and will present the analysis during today's call. · Modified version of the public comment review tool, which we shared prior to the new year. Break down the comments, along the lines of the sections of the initial report, and the questions and recommendations. · Further thinking about how to further facilitate your consideration. How to deal with input? Focusing on next step. Potential changes to the report might be needed. · We added a column : analysis of the type of change suggested, and possible action. For those items where the CCWG is asked to consider certain perspectives, to assess what the next step might be for the CCWG. For those comments where no change was suggested, staff has put in the right column "thank you for the input, we appreciate your support for the recommendation". · Way to develop a workplan for the next phase: we can line up the items that require further consideration. · example page 8: this recommendation is suggesting to consider enhancing option A. Staff labeled this a "new idea”, and put together some preliminary recommendations. · Concerns were raised that the comments are not helping us, since after 2 years of operation we did not come up with a report that was decisive and detailed enough · There was a letter from the Board during/after the Barcelona meeting. For this particular Board letter we added a summary in this document. A reply should be formulated. Action item #1: Group to revise the public comment review tool and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team. Action #2: Leadership team and CCWG to fomulate answer to the Board's latest letter. 4. Next steps / proposed timeline · Chair Ching Chiao suggests to give the group 2 weeks to further comment. · Is a next public comment rounded needed? o Chair suggests we have a better idea by the next meeting whether a next public comment period is needed or not. However, a second round means further delays in delivering the end results. o Others say a second public comment round is inevitable due to the fact that our report asks too many questions, without taking any decisions, or that a second round would be needed more to the extent that we are not able to integrate the feedback from the community into the existing report. o Some concerns were raised regarding what the group wants to achieve, other than a new comment round. The group needs to be more focused, and show a lot of progress, otherwise a second round will not be looked positively upon. o Marika suggests for the group to work through to the comments and make updates as needed. Once the report has been updated, make the assessment whether the changes are fundamental enough to warrant a second round of public comment. Might be premature to say so now. · Working Methods There are substantial number of items that have been identified for further consideration. What is the best way of dealing with this? Go through those items collectively? Would offline work be helpful, e.g. via a google doc? Are smaller teams helpful here? A number of approaches are helpful to consider there. That helps us to work out a draft timeline leading into the final report, or a next report. Action item #3: Chair suggests staff and the leadership team to spend further thoughts on how to help focusing the group on the leadership recommendations. · Marika suggests the group to focus on reviewing the comments, and to flag concerns with the recommendations. Staff can put together clusters of topics that need to be addressed, including new ideas, so that the review can kick off. · How to go through these questions? plenary style? 2-week meeting cycle, with set of questions and how to address whether changes are to be made to the report? Plenary style will take a lot of time. · how is the CCWG supposed to deal with submissions where there are concerns? especially if there are checks and further study to be made of the submission idea the CCWG will need to explain how those concerns where already considered and considered addressed, or consider how these concerns can be addressed, whether that is through further checks, further study and/or updates to the report / recommendations. In certain cases it may be a new concern that the group didn't think about yet, in other cases, it may be a concern that the group already considered and addressed as part of its recommendations. the group should focus on the review of comments and how that affects the recommendations, and only after that think about whether additional public comment is needed · categories in the public comment review tool, 3rd column: [Support], [Concern]: to flag anything that is not agreement, and not a completely new idea, [New idea] 5. Plans for ICANN64 a. Monday 11 March – 13.30 – 15.00 local time b. Wednesday 13 March – 17.00 – 18.30 local time Some concerns regarding the 2nd slot. Challenging for many SO/ACs. Staff to verify whether there is an alternative slot for the second one. We are most likely still in public comment review phase in Kobe, it is important for people to attend. 6. Confirm next meeting 13 February 2019, 14:00 UTC. 7. AOB Reconfirmation of the membership. Not intended as a new call for volunteers. Ensure that we have a good participation level. Remind SO/ACs that is important that members actively participate, especially when we come to a consensus call. 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=DwMGa…>

3 2

Proposed Agenda - CCWG meeting Wednesday 13 February at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday 13 February at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting – Wednesday 13 February at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome - SOI/DOI updates 3. Consider feedback received on recommendations made by the leadership team in relation to the public comment review tool, if any 4. Commence review of input received on recommendation #1 * review updated template (see attached) * deliberate on suggestions from commenters and leadership recommendations 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item
by Marika Konings Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Reminder: Action item #1: Group to revise the public comment review tool (see attached) and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 09:28 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019 Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Joke Braeken = = = = = = = Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019 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. 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Proposed approach for reviewing / addressing public comments: a. Present proposed approach i. Acknowledge those comments that are in support of the proposed recommendations or recommend minor updates ii. Leadership team to put forward proposed approach for those comments that are either new or differ from the proposed recommendations iii. CCWG to review items in category 2 and flag for which the proposed approach is not supported or where an alternative is needed iv. CCWG to implement proposed approach as agreed upon under 3 b. CCWG comments / input on proposed approach c. Deliberate on comments identified as requiring further deliberation, as an example. · Before going to the Public Comment Review Tool, let's capture what was discussed during our last meeting: we ended with the public comments. We received some feedback that the initial report was not emphasising that the community should be reviewing the model, and decide on the structure of the auction proceeds. Some new ideas were raised as well. Leadership and staff analysed the comments, and will present the analysis during today's call. · Modified version of the public comment review tool, which we shared prior to the new year. Break down the comments, along the lines of the sections of the initial report, and the questions and recommendations. · Further thinking about how to further facilitate your consideration. How to deal with input? Focusing on next step. Potential changes to the report might be needed. · We added a column : analysis of the type of change suggested, and possible action. For those items where the CCWG is asked to consider certain perspectives, to assess what the next step might be for the CCWG. For those comments where no change was suggested, staff has put in the right column "thank you for the input, we appreciate your support for the recommendation". · Way to develop a workplan for the next phase: we can line up the items that require further consideration. · example page 8: this recommendation is suggesting to consider enhancing option A. Staff labeled this a "new idea”, and put together some preliminary recommendations. · Concerns were raised that the comments are not helping us, since after 2 years of operation we did not come up with a report that was decisive and detailed enough · There was a letter from the Board during/after the Barcelona meeting. For this particular Board letter we added a summary in this document. A reply should be formulated. Action item #1: Group to revise the public comment review tool and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team. Action #2: Leadership team and CCWG to fomulate answer to the Board's latest letter. 4. Next steps / proposed timeline * Chair Ching Chiao suggests to give the group 2 weeks to further comment. * Is a next public comment rounded needed? * Chair suggests we have a better idea by the next meeting whether a next public comment period is needed or not. However, a second round means further delays in delivering the end results. * Others say a second public comment round is inevitable due to the fact that our report asks too many questions, without taking any decisions, or that a second round would be needed more to the extent that we are not able to integrate the feedback from the community into the existing report. * Some concerns were raised regarding what the group wants to achieve, other than a new comment round. The group needs to be more focused, and show a lot of progress, otherwise a second round will not be looked positively upon. * Marika suggests for the group to work through to the comments and make updates as needed. Once the report has been updated, make the assessment whether the changes are fundamental enough to warrant a second round of public comment. Might be premature to say so now. * Working Methods There are substantial number of items that have been identified for further consideration. What is the best way of dealing with this? Go through those items collectively? Would offline work be helpful, e.g. via a google doc? Are smaller teams helpful here? A number of approaches are helpful to consider there. That helps us to work out a draft timeline leading into the final report, or a next report. Action item #3: Chair suggests staff and the leadership team to spend further thoughts on how to help focusing the group on the leadership recommendations. * Marika suggests the group to focus on reviewing the comments, and to flag concerns with the recommendations. Staff can put together clusters of topics that need to be addressed, including new ideas, so that the review can kick off. * How to go through these questions? plenary style? 2-week meeting cycle, with set of questions and how to address whether changes are to be made to the report? Plenary style will take a lot of time. * how is the CCWG supposed to deal with submissions where there are concerns? especially if there are checks and further study to be made of the submission idea the CCWG will need to explain how those concerns where already considered and considered addressed, or consider how these concerns can be addressed, whether that is through further checks, further study and/or updates to the report / recommendations. In certain cases it may be a new concern that the group didn't think about yet, in other cases, it may be a concern that the group already considered and addressed as part of its recommendations. the group should focus on the review of comments and how that affects the recommendations, and only after that think about whether additional public comment is needed * categories in the public comment review tool, 3rd column: [Support], [Concern]: to flag anything that is not agreement, and not a completely new idea, [New idea] 5. Plans for ICANN64 a. Monday 11 March – 13.30 – 15.00 local time b. Wednesday 13 March – 17.00 – 18.30 local time Some concerns regarding the 2nd slot. Challenging for many SO/ACs. Staff to verify whether there is an alternative slot for the second one. We are most likely still in public comment review phase in Kobe, it is important for people to attend. 6. Confirm next meeting 13 February 2019, 14:00 UTC. 7. AOB Reconfirmation of the membership. Not intended as a new call for volunteers. Ensure that we have a good participation level. Remind SO/ACs that is important that members actively participate, especially when we come to a consensus call. 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=DwMGa…>

3 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Are we trying to reinvent the wheel or Coordinate with other donors: Other Internet Community funding initiatives..
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 5, 2019

Feb. 5, 2019

Thanks John But perhaps these sources could have been raised when we first discussed other organisations that were offering funds for similar types of projects that we were suggesting. Especially from those who may already have benefitted from these funds and had knowledge that we could have used. Its a little bit late now. We've gone through too much to be looking back. Maureen On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:09 PM John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > Are the US funds open to applicants internationally? > > Dunno but the point is to look at existing successful processes to adapt > rather than reinventing one from scratch. This WG has made pitifully slow > progress so far, and a lot of stuff we have yet to do like COI policy > shouldn't be very different from other largish non-profit funders. > > R's, > John > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:03 AM Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> As one of the newest member of the group, let me ask a question - and > >> apologies, if it’s already been discussed.. > >> > >> The question being, has there been any discussion of existing - internet > >> funding initiatives (a quick list below) - their focus area, their > >> processes, opportunities for coordination and collaboration , and best > >> practices that this ccwg might want to incorporate into our work and > >> recommendations? > >> > >> The US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour > >> (DRL) annual funding call is , in my opinion, a good example for us to > >> review and comment as it has many of the sections, description of > >> process, review criteria and - Eligibility requirements that, to a > >> certain extent, would also have to be followed by ICANN or spun-off US > >> based entity that might be created. > >> > >> I welcome others thoughts on this. > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> > >> Robert > >> — > >> > >> Short list of internet funding initiatives that might be of interest for > >> this CCWG to review (in some capacity) > >> > >> Open Technology Fund: Internet Freedom Fund > >> https://www.opentech.fund/funds/internet-freedom-fund/ > >> > >> US State Department: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) > >> Annual funding for Internet Freedom Initiatives. > >> https://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/288385.htm > >> - In support of the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace, DRL’s > >> goal is to protect the open, interoperable, secure, and reliable > >> Internet by promoting fundamental freedoms, human rights, and the free > >> flow of information online through integrated support to civil society > >> for technology, digital safety, policy and advocacy, and applied > >> research programs. > >> > >> CIRA : Community Investment Program (CA ccTLD funded) > >> https://cira.ca/community-investment-program > >> > >> The European Digital Rights Fund > >> https://digitalrights.fund/ > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Guerra > >> Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 > >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > >> Email: rguerra(a)privaterra.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

5 4

Are we trying to reinvent the wheel or Coordinate with other donors: Other Internet Community funding initiatives..
by Robert Guerra Feb. 5, 2019

Feb. 5, 2019

Dear all, As one of the newest member of the group, let me ask a question - and apologies, if it’s already been discussed.. The question being, has there been any discussion of existing - internet funding initiatives (a quick list below) - their focus area, their processes, opportunities for coordination and collaboration , and best practices that this ccwg might want to incorporate into our work and recommendations? The US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour (DRL) annual funding call is , in my opinion, a good example for us to review and comment as it has many of the sections, description of process, review criteria and - Eligibility requirements that, to a certain extent, would also have to be followed by ICANN or spun-off US based entity that might be created. I welcome others thoughts on this. regards, Robert — Short list of internet funding initiatives that might be of interest for this CCWG to review (in some capacity) Open Technology Fund: Internet Freedom Fund https://www.opentech.fund/funds/internet-freedom-fund/ US State Department: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) Annual funding for Internet Freedom Initiatives. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/288385.htm - In support of the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace, DRL’s goal is to protect the open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet by promoting fundamental freedoms, human rights, and the free flow of information online through integrated support to civil society for technology, digital safety, policy and advocacy, and applied research programs. CIRA : Community Investment Program (CA ccTLD funded) https://cira.ca/community-investment-program The European Digital Rights Fund https://digitalrights.fund/ -- Robert Guerra Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra(a)privaterra.org

9 13