February 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

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