- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

I will leave it to CCWG leadership and staff to select the right word. Alan At 28/08/2019 05:45 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: >agree with Maureen and Sam. >cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT >what we are agreeing on. > > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the >Mailman link above to change your membership status or >configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
by Marika Konings Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during today’s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANN’s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. 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…>.

12 24

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

To be clear, I mean to not mention any specific measure by name, or be exhaustive. The reference to no ICANN accountability measures applicable mus reman. At 26/08/2019 11:08 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I thought there was general agreement to not have the statement on "redress through other means". Back to Marika's original statement, I would prefer to not mention any ICANN reconsideration process, or to be exhaustive (including reconsideration and the Ombudsman). Alan At 26/08/2019 10:26 AM, Judith Hellerstein wrote: Hi MARIKA, Thanks so much for that additional insight. I had thought they did follow each other as your email had not indicated they would be in separate parts of the report. In this case I have revised the wording as follows. Also if we are using the term Board in one place we need to be consistent and so I deleted the word "Icann". If we want to use state ICANN Board int he later half of the sentence than we should use it also in the earlier instance. We should be consistent in the terms we are using The CCWG agreed that appropriate measures should be taken to exclude applicants applying for Auction Proceeds from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in any review context would be in relation to the overall programâ€™s disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel, and not a result of the Board's assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/26/2019 10:04 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Judith but deleting the last sentence from the first paragraph removes the rationale for the CCWGâ€™s recommendation to not provide access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP. It may be important for readers to have this context to understand the CCWGâ€™s recommendation? Also as a reminder, these two paragraphs do not immediately follow each other in the report. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: "judith(a)jhellerstein.com"<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 16:13 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika I have re-written the first paragraph to make it more understandable and clear. There is no need for the last two sentences of the first paragraph as they are contained in the second and are very clear there. I think this give a better write up of what was discussed and makes it more succinct and clear The CCWG after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeal, discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected but agreed that this would not be a feasible option. Instead it recommends that applicants not selected be given educational materials to assist them with filling out applications for future rounds and also be given the details on when this round will be open. Both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=…> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhe…> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 8/23/2019 10:50 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks all for your input. The updated language would read as follows: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this [any review] context would be in relation to the [overall programâ€™s] disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika From: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:36 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org"<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org><mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism agree with Marilyn's proposed changes On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Agreeing with Maarten. If people can misunderstand, they will! It is just human nature, made more complex by multiple languages. ðŸ™‚ I am going a little further with a slight adjustment to the present language/but it is only a POSSIBLE REVISION: HIGHLIGHTED/AND IN CAPS. Deletions in [ ]. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in [this] ANY REVIEW context would be in relation to the OVERALL PROGRAM'S disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org> < maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:40 AM To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear Marika, Just to avoid new confusion, it may be good to be crisp clear in your text that neither Board nor Org will be evaluating and making determinations on individual applications, this is the role of the Independent Panel. When you say below: The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. It may happen that people who have not intensely followed the process *could* get the impression that the Board would assess individual applications, and we will not. Thanks Maarten From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 23:42 To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated language in relation to individual appeals mechanism Dear CCWG, Thanks all for your input and suggestions in relation to the proposed language concerning the individual appeals mechanism. Hereby for your review updated language (in bold and brackets) which aims to reflect the input received during todayâ€™s meeting. As also noted, staff will review the latest draft of the report and insert in the appropriate place implementation guidance that would recommend that appropriate informational materials are developed and provided to assist applicants. If you have any further comments, concerns or suggestions, please share these by Friday 23 August at the latest. Proposed text for inclusion in the Final Report in relation to an individual appeals mechanism: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants not selected [should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants]. [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected]. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corpporation 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=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protec…>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

5 4

Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

Sorry this took so long. The revision is attached. Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2. Alan

5 6

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

OK. The point I was trying to make clear was that the APPRP would not DO assessments of particular projects, but well may act on the results reported by the Mechanism. Alan At 26/08/2019 04:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this: * The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this: * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"? b On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:49 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Sorry this took so long. The revision is attached. Note that in the first bullet I have a bracketed sentence about the SO/AC Chairs selecting if an SO/AC names more than 2 people. I think we can safely omit this and require that an SO/AC not name more than 2. Alan_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by John R Levine Aug. 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2019

> Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual > appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. > Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of > the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August. It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g. * Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN? * I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no. 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

12 25

Next steps re. Selection of mechanism and timeline to finalize work by ICANN66
by Marika Konings Aug. 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2019

Dear CCWG, As discussed during today’s meeting, here are the proposed next steps regarding the selection of the mechanism(s) as well as the proposed timeline to finalize work by ICANN66. We would like to encourage the chartering organization appointed members to consult with their appointing organizations on their expectations with regards to these final steps as well as prepare them for the upcoming consultation on the indicative survey results and subsequent publication of the Final Report (either for public comment or for Chartering Organization consideration. Next Steps re. selection of recommended Mechanism(s) Once leadership and the CCWG are of the view that the content of the report, especially the descriptions of the different mechanisms, are in a near final state: 1. Conduct a mechanism ranking survey amongst CCWG members, including requesting input on whether one or two mechanisms should be put forward to the ICANN Board; 2. Share the results of the mechanism ranking indicative survey with CCWG. CCWG members to consult with their respective groups on the outcome of the survey and confirm whether or not it aligns with the expectations of the different chartering organizations. Sharing of the survey results would be accompanied with the latest version of the newsletter which would include details on the updates made in the final report. 3. Release an update of our regular AP newsletter to inform everyone about the process above. 4. Re-run mechanism ranking definitive survey amongst CCWG members. As a reminder, per the CCWG Charter, “in addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.” 5. Leadership to review definitive results and assess level of support. 6. Leadership to confirm consensus designation to CCWG members (“consensus call”) – leadership team to review if any concerns regarding designation are expressed. If full consensus is not achieved, establish timeline by which minority statements are to be submitted. 7. Submit final report to Chartering Organizations for adoption OR publish proposed final report for public comment. Timeline to finalize work by ICANN66 Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 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…>.

2 1

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: CCWG meeting on 21 August 2019 | 14:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

Hello all. Please find included below the notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 21 August 2019 (14 UTC). Note that the order of the agenda items was changed during the call. The notes below reflect the order for the discussions. Best regards, Joke Braeken 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/display/CWGONGAP/2019+Meetings. ACTION ITEMS AI#1: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): Leadership to clarify item number 4 based on the comments during today’s meeting (input from Alan, Marylin, Judith, Sylvia) AI#2: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): review the language from the charter, to ensure the proposed next steps are in line with the charter AI#3: Alan will update the proposal regarding the role of the community, based on today’s discussion. He will share the updated version shortly. AI#4: Once the updated version by Alan is shared with the CCWG, the leadership team to check whether the guidelines for the implementation team need to be checked, to evaluate whether something needs to be added AI#5: Include in the guidelines: the mechanism will be responsible for the process of selecting and appointing independent experts, informed by the work done by the CCWG and the criteria / skills identified in the implementation phase. Clarifying language regarding the first selection of the expert project evaluation panel to be added, once an appropriate location has been found. AI#6: Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism: Language to be updated, based on today’s discussions NOTES 1. Welcome/Agenda Welcome by Erika Mann 2. Review/SOI Updates None. 3. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) Overview prepared by the leadership team. Proposed steps that leadership developed to move to possibly 1 mechanism as the final recommendation. Is there support for doing that? Use an indicative ranking survey, among the CCWG members, to indicate whether there would be support for putting fwd 1 or 2 mechanisms to the ICANN Board. Then share the results with the respective chartering organisations, together with an updated version of the newsletter. This would also be shared with the broader community. Then we would re-run the survey among the CCWG, followed by an assessment of the results. This will lead to a consensus, as specified in the CCWG’s charter. If full consensus cannot be achieved, there will be a timeline for the submission of minority statements. Then the report will be submitted to the chartering organisations OR, there will be another round of public comments. Judith: What is the intent of the 2nd survey? Are we putting forward only 1 mechanism? Erika: This group is not voting on anything. The 2 phased approach gives everyone more time for reflection. Alan: Survey of the SO/ACs, or a survey of the CCWG members? Erika: 1st is an indicative survey by the CCWG members. The 2nd survey will reflect the discussion these members had with their respective groups, and report back with a single opinion. Suggestion to have a ranking, and to add a question “ can you live with this outcome”. Marilyn: Understood that appointed members need to keep their chartering organisations informed. Vote by the GNSO Policy Council. Lot of disparities between the positions. Also disparity on the attendance records. Marika: At the end of the day, the chartering organizations will need to vote/adopt the recommendations so if there are difference of opinions that can already be addressed here, it would increase the changes of support by chartering organizations? Sylvia: Independent of the mechanism, there should be a set of criteria that all mechanisms have in common. Use the comparative slides, to bring closure to this process. Marika: Clarification. Cut and paste the language with regards to the expectations of the members with respect to their appointing organisations. Members to start the dialogue with their respective groups, on what the next steps are. Maarten: Feedback on what they think the Boards’ position is, and what is important is on the fiduciary requirements and bylaws requirements. Early september there will be a Board Meeting, feedback will be provided afterwards. AI#1: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): Leadership to clarify item number 4 based on the comments during today’s meeting (input from Alan, Marylin, Judith, Sylvia) AI#2: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): review the language from the charter, to ensure the proposed next steps are in line with the charter 4. Steps to finalize work by ICANN66 Aim to finalise the work by ICANN66. Timeline of the different steps is being shared in the zoom room. Session at ICANN66: Wednesday, 6 November. 15:15-18:30. Potentially end at 16:45 5. Updated Proposal – Role of the Community * What do we call this? Panel? Committee? For specific reviews we call them working Groups. Alan prefers panels, for both of the groups. * Edit made, saying that the periodic (annual) review panel may include community volunteers. Suggestion to replace “may” with “will”. * May participants be compensated? It could be a nominal token amount, not necessarily a salary. ICANN typically does not provide compensation, other than travel support. Alan recommends to take this out. Marilyn: programme review panel. Suggestion: Participants in the panel “could” be compensated, based on their work. This leaves it open. Honorarium obligates people. The next implementation team needs to make a final decision on this. * Zero, 1 or 2 members per SO/AC. Should the GNSO have more members? Marilyn does not understand the rationale to have more GNSO people than others. The money does not belong to the GNSO. Jonathan does not have an opinion and has not heard any strong views from the GNSO * Independent selected people. Experts. Are these 2 different groups or the same the independent people are the experts in Alan’s view. Big group is not effective. Maarten: current thinking is that the panel should not interact with the independent panel during the evaluations. Simplicity is preferred. Marilyn: adding expertise, either from inside icann, people that have expertise in evaluation, and/or granting. Independently selected members who could come from the icann community, or who could be selected from external expertise in evaluating. Erika: we speak here about the annual review, that judges what the evaluation team is doing. They are not evaluating projects. Alan: no issue in merging the 2. No prohibition that experts come from the community. This group is not only looking at whether the projects funded are the right ones, but also at the whole process. Becky: HOPE the panel is NOT charged with deciding whether the selections were right. That opens up huge risk. The question is are the funds being used in furtherance of the specified purpose . Critical to stay away from project level analysis. Sylvia: process is separate from the monitoring and evaluation of the projects. If the text goes to much into details we might end up with difficulties. Depending on the size of the grants, the timeframe these projects will take might be very complicated. Tackle it here, so make sure there is no confusion possible by the implementation team * 3rd bullet. It is not a financial audit. * 4th bullet * Last item: controversial. The project evaluation group that evaluates applications, may seek guidance on the wording of the criteria has been given, to ensure decisions are taken in line with the intent of the criteria. Not a lot of support for this. Suggestion to scrap this bullet completely. Maarten agrees * Why 2 panels instead of 1? Composition and workload is different. the 2nd panel looks at the decisions made by this group and the implementation group, and to see whether significant changes are needed, or is this group on track? * 2 way-triggering. Either by the panel that does the annual evaluation, or by the Board Organisational effectiveness committee. The annual review is light-touch, but the one after 3 years is a heavy lifting. Erika prefers to keep the second one in. unsure how long the money is going to last. * Mandatory timeframe? Marilyn prefers it to have extremely light. Requirement of a 3-year review. 5-years is what is usual in larger funds (erika’s preference). Group thinks 3 years sounds reasonable. * Bylaws say specific reviews must be done every 5 years. Generally agreed that this was a mistake. We could make a recommendation to consider initiating a review. Or every 3 years subject to Board approval. * 3 years for the first review is too soon in Alan’s view. Suggestion: First review at 4 years, and the 3 years thereafter. Marylin does not agree, since everyone suggests 3 years. Group agrees to keep the early trigger, and to keep the review at 3 years (mandatory), including the very first one. * Annual panel to be continued or not. AI#3: Alan will update the proposal regarding the role of the community, based on today’s discussion. He will share the updated version shortly. AI#4: Once the updated version by Alan is shared with the CCWG, the leadership team to check whether the guidelines for the implementation team need to be checked, to evaluate whether something needs to be added 6. Update on the Work of the Small Group Focused on the Independent Panel Selecting Funding Recipients Stepped forward to the small team: Marylin Cade, Maureen Hilyard, Vanda Scartezini, Ching Chiao, Thato Mfikwe, Alan Greenberg, Jonathan Robinson, Elliot Noss Erika presents the proposed updated language for inclusion in the Final Report following the call last week by the small team. Erika introduces this language during today’s meeting. However, it has not been reviewed yet by the small team. The idea is to get some initial input from the group that the small team can then factor in when it finalizes the language following today’s meeting. Marilyn: Does not recall what Jonathan’s concerns were. Neutral and balanced representation. Erika: Complete independence for people from the community that serve on a panel? Prefers Jonathan to clarify his point himself. Maarten: Important to be clear on what expertise and independence means. We aim to provide more insight after the Board workshop Alan: Eliott has not been able to be either at small group meetings or lately the CCWG. Elliot prefers the group that selects projects to be consisting of community members. Sylvia: Prefers to include in the title” proposal for applications”. Evaluation is a word that might create confusion. Who selects the members on the panel? Depending on the scope of the grants call, volunteers need to know about grant management, project management, and the subject matter. In the call for volunteers, the expertise should be clearly described. Erika: We talk about experts, let’s avoid the word volunteer. When they apply, they are experts Sylvia: Expertise should be linked to the actual round of funding. Marika: It would be the mechanism that would be responsible for selection of the experts, not the implementation team. Implementation team could be involved in developing the criteria, but it may be a slippery slope if they are involved in appointments. AI#5: Include in the guidelines: the mechanism will be responsible for the process of selecting and appointing independent experts, informed by the work done by the CCWG and the criteria / skills identified in the implementation phase. Clarifying language regarding the first selection of the expert project evaluation panel to be added, once an appropriate location has been found. 7. Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism Language circulated on the list. General support for the re-wording Appeals: Not typical that a reason is given. Avoid this. Do not justify why a project was rejected. We should be clear on what we want the implementation team to do. Feedback is however important. Alan: how is feedback different from reasons? We might not want to put the feedback in writing, and also the workload might be too large. We could add language that legal action is not possible, or something along those lines. Liability issues. Sylvia: Agrees with Alan. if the guidelines are clear, there is less need for feedback. Those that receive feedback are more engaged with the project in the future. AI#6: Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism: Language to be updated, based on today’s discussions 8. AOB Wednesday, 18 September 2019 | 14 UTC 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

Post call / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/GoDkBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and participants can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to participant. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/> and the main wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/yJXDAw> Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough". Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not. Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes! I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection. All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $. Alan At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile. Maureen On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse. I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee canâ€™t agree and a proposal doesnâ€™t have full support but those discussions are not made public. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Dear All, Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date: The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that [this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved]. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNâ€™s Board assessment of an individual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds. CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed. This will be on the agenda for Wednesdayâ€™s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of Wednesdayâ€™s meeting. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >, "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, " ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr(a)hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr@hwglaw.com>> wrote: It will be particularly important that the final report be clear that the CCWG does not believe that ICANNâ€™s existing accountability mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to challenge an adverse grant decision. Those mechanisms are not well suited to this kind of situation. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> > Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>, CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Hi Erika I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the grant process Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> < mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com> < mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding ... hopefully we can put this item to rest now. Erika Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> < mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal mechanism? Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'? Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively; considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and would add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so that in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully informed? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> < mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> Cc: John R Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com> < mailto:johnl@taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the independent panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to the society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing the start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of the technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> < mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote: "That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program." End quote. This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of the grant process being tabled. The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of the grants. My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay well within pre established control lines. There are already review mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission and purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body, and the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d list, no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" . I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible. Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind... RD On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> < mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should: - be VERY light weight; - there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission - go to the manager of the selection group with the final result being final; - the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected. Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has recently been suggested). Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds for that period on projects that were better! As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process, and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the program with little positive outcome. That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected, should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for the annul review of the program. Alan At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote: Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually run such grant making organizations @Sylvia Cadena< mailto:sylvia@apnic.net < mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over? I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently set up an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so no, we are not. It's a bad idea. R's, John At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote: Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on the individual appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your review. Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in advance of the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21 August. It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather important questions open, e.g. * Who pays for the appeal? Is it like UDRP where the parties split the cost, or is it all ICANN? * I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be applicants who are unhappy that they didn't get funded. Is there a way to dispose of obviously bogus appeals efficiently? Obviously bogus means things like not identifying any process failure other than saying no. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com<mailto:johnl@iecc.com> < mailto:johnl@iecc.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly [jl.ly]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&dat… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&dat…>> ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.…>> ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> < https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> < mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

4 3