- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft
by Marilyn Cade July 27, 2019

July 27, 2019

John, I am not going to critique anything about ISOC creating a foundation. why, wherefore, or amounts, or where the funding source comes from. but, my point is we cannot use a single personal experience in the establishment of a foundation as the role model for ICANN. Such a recent situation and one that is individual to a particular entity in the technical community does not necessarily present a role model for others, but is a laudable response to a funding opportunity that benefitted ISOC< and where ISOC is creating a foundation to support its core mission. BRAND new. Not a role model. Laudable for ISOC. Excellent! Legal status of "parent" organization: different from ICANN. Responsibility of "parent" organization -- VERY different. Incorporation of organization -- Different ________________________________ From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:31 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft > Let's not assume anything from our own experience. Count on facts. Sorry, but no. What we did while setting up the ISOC foundation is a fact. If you don't believe me, there's not much I can do about that. Once again, I totally concur with your concerns about the process and possible influence by ICANN staff, but assuptions that creating extra levels of bueracracy in a short term foundation are just that, assumptions. R's, John

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2019

July 27, 2019

Marilyn, although I have preferences, I will not here debate the options or even how we are to decide, but I would like more clarity on how you see the Mechanism C foundation operating. The only example we have for a corporation being set up in addition to ICANN is PTI. In that case, the majority of the PTI Board is appointed by ICANN (the rest being appointed by the ICANN NomCom), so it is had to claim that there is any independence. I presume that your intent would be to have, at the least, a majority of Foundation Board members being appointed NOT by ICANN. What level of majority for non-ICANN Board members do you consider reasonable and how would you see them being selected? You talk here about the potential for ICANN chargebacks being excessive. PTI purchases (ie outsources) a variety of services from ICANN (accounting, payroll, building space, etc.) Would you foresee the Foundation doing the same or are you suggesting that this not be allowed (ie the Foundation must be truly a stand-alone body providing all of its own services, or outsourcing them to some non-ICANN entity(ies). You talk about ICANN's salaries being excessive. How would you enforce lower salary levels in the Foundation when it would likely be co-located with ICANN and Foundation employees being able to be hired by ICANN for significant pay increases? The gist of my questions are that indeed, ICANN may have high operating costs, but I am unsure how the Foundation remedies it. A foundation *may* allow us to address such issues, but without clear ground rules, an "independent" foundation affiliated with ICANN could well have all of the same issues as those you associate with Mechanism A. Alan At 26/07/2019 10:30 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: my apologies for being off line for a couple of days as other priorities did take over my life. As I represent the CSG, which is 3 constituencies, I will restate that we have strong concerns about Mechanism A as we do not understand how to ensure complete independence, which is of critical importance. I can't say that have been able to fully consult recently with the other participants from the CSG, but the general direction has not changed. We supported Mechanism C, and our preference has not changed. Accepting that there needs to be two options, Mechanism A and Mechanism C presented to the community -- still we strongly require that there be more fact based, and not just opinions from each of us as participants, presented. Thus, while any of us may have experience or preference, the CSG prefers to see fact based and even external reports. We do not support relying on member or participant, or internal ICANN staff analysis on certain areas, as for Mechanism A, given the landfall of chargeback costs, there could be unrecognized preferences. Thus we want to see independent analysis of the key questions. and while we welcome ICANN legal and financial analysis, it is not sufficient. Further ICANN staff are not experts in grant making, grant management and while they can "count heads" and analyze certain functions such as completing the tax returns, the 990, etc., maintaining separate bank accounts, as they have done with the Auction Funds proceeds as an interim management function, this does not morph into a sophisticated grant management entity. Mechanism A: This in not the CSG preferred option. We have described our concern that there are issues about an in-house entity, with many issues related to how to be independent., lack of skills, hiring and firing of staff, increased liability to ICANN Org, overall, etc. etc It is not accurate to state that because ICANN can set up separate bank accounts and maintain independence of such, that they are experienced in operating a truly independent grant making program. AND in operating such. An internal unit will have higher costs than are being acknowledged. On'e can't work part time on policy development or at GDD or GEE and then, presto, magic, morph over to spend 4 hours per day on a grant making program, at a lower costs, or at the same, higher cost of ICANN but without any clear distinction for tax reporting purposes. ICANN pays much higher salareies/benefits than is usual in a grant making entity and has also exit costs for staff who are part of ICANN and then are "made surplus", etc. And, not it isn't sufficient to cite California laws as if an employee is based in Europe, they gain additional benefits, like announcing they want to take a sabbatical to attend an educational program, and they simply are then still able to return to ICANN with a guarantee of job, as we have expeienced in the past. ICANN pays at far above usual rates for a not for profit organization, instead benchmarking against high tech companies -- this has been noted and objected to in the Budget Comments from the community, but is relevant here only as any "internal" process brings on exceptionally higher costs than is usual in a grant making/grant oversight/management process established in an external organization. I heard statements like: these staff can apply for ICANN jobs in the future, rather than being terminated. Let's be clear: grant making is a different skill set and we need to recognize that. In addition, the internal mechanism assumes that ICANN bills the "fund" at their usual really [well, I hesitate to use the word bloated, but certainly "high cost"] for any services they provide, and any services they provide are on top of what is supposed to be a full time job [according to the ICANN budget], which means retention of contractors, external resources, or additions of staff]. All at ICANN usual "costs". Again, higher than is usual for grant making organizations. The independence of any "internal body" is highly questionable. Stating that the ICANN Board has fiduciary responsibility, etc. is factual, but does not mean day to day oversight. And in fact, should be recognized as prohibited by the need for an independent disbursement mechanism. In fact, in the view of some, including the CSG and others in the public comment process, creating a mechanism with accountability, and independence from influence from Board and staff and even community, with focus on the established criteria led to members of the community to support Mechanism C over the recommendation of Mechanism A and B. Mechanism C remains our preferred option to present but we understand that it is possibly useful to present Mechanism A and C -- both -- as there is not agreement to a single mechanism at this point, among those who are active representatives and participants in this work effort. And it is important for us all to understand that this has been a prolonged and intensive effort. And we are close to the end -- presenting, we hope -- two options, with more detailed analysis and remaining questions, and then posting for our final public comment process. Frankly, as for me, there are continued questions about the influence of the staff and even the Board from time to time on this process and whether it is appropriate to have "preferences" expressed, which occasionally I have feared that I tetected -- e.g. the Board prefers ... etc. or senior staff think... etc. I believe strongly, and advocated from when I became the CSG rep that it is essential to have a very stringent approach to fact based decision making, essential for a public service, not for profit corporation, incorporated under California law. And an independent process that does not bring into ICANN a short term process, that is clearly not part of the core mission of ICXANN -- e.g grants management of a short term/but multi million$ fund, but one that is not part of why we created ICANN. Creating a separate Foundation, with a separate independent Board, with perhaps two ex officio non voting members that are from the ICANN Board, and a community advisory group I understand that some prefer to have the function inside ICANN. That is not supported by others in the members and participants, so a compromise is submitting Mechanism A and C, but then actually doing more due diligence as needed about each. Statements that a separate foundation is more expensive or longer than an internal mechanism are speculative right now, but can be addressed by factual analysis. However, I do not agree that ICANN staff have expertise in analyzing the attributes of staff or process to manage grant solutions/review/management. 🙂 Yes, they can set up separate bank accounts, and do other forms of administrative reporting, and of course, would have to be paid for at the usual ICANN [which is quite generous} fee basis. BUT, the background, experience, and skills to do grant solicitation,award/evalation is different. Recently an experienced colleague in grants management told me he managed a $80M grant which was dispersed in a 9 month announcement, award selection, then performance of 1 year period, with a second year management/evulation process, and described the overhead and reports. Another colleague told me about a $190M grant process -- again, dispursement/oversight/evaluation within a 3 year period. These are not trivial tasks, and the overhead is what some might think is high, but is based on what kind of evaluation is required, and whether it is a grant to do something, or a grant to effect a major change. One might be light assessment- a) hold a meeting with 50 people/address training in DNSSEC, 40 of those invited attended/ 35 received the credentials, etc. etc. versus: establish a multi year, multi country training program in capacity building in DNS issues and successfully bring in 200 attendees per year, with XX changes in skills at national level. Evaluate changes in expertise. Mechanism B had some attraction but there was not enough work on the criteria bout how to select the "partner" with experience/expertise in operating a grant making program. Thus, I hope that the CCWG-AP sending forward Mechanism A and Mechanism C -- with the clear understanding that the CSG has many concerns with Mechanism A, and prefers Mechanism C. And we will encourage informed comments during the public comment process. It is important to be clear about what the public comment process is about. I spent over an hour clarifying to Fellows and NextGen, who were encouraged by ICANN staff to express their "preference" on how to influence what is funded. This is a misunderstanding and probably on many parts. That is NOT the purpose of the CCWG-AP, and probably a misunderstanding by staff when they encouraged attending the CCWG-AP session but it is important to understand that this public comment includes a clear understandable statement that this is not a slush fund; it is not up to the ICANN Board to direct; it must be independently managed and not put ICANN's integrity, or tax status, or anti trust status at risk by any even suspicion. Boards change, so do Senior staff/executives. The community needs to have a good understanding of our responsibilities, but also our limitation, given the focused purpose of the Auction Proceeds. Marilyn Cade CSG member in the CCWG-AP ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:25 PM To: Elliot Noss <enoss(a)tucows.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft Hi Elliot Mechanism A is an internal icann department hired to do the evaluation and choosing of grants As such icann staff will be reviewing all grant applications and choosing the winners. This is why I said, to me it is clear, that this mechanism has the least independence and in my mind does not meet the requirements set up by the board. If icann outsourced the reviewing and selection of the grantees it us not clear to me what the difference of the mechanisms us to me. With mechanism b, this choice of reviewing and selecting the grant winners will be done by the donor advisory fund. This is and independent group where icann has no ability to influence Mechanism C is an icann foundation. Again an independent group reviews and select the grantees Hope this answers your questions Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Jul 25, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Elliot Noss <enoss(a)tucows.com<mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> wrote: Hi Judith, You say " It seems clear to me that Mechanism A would not meet the independent requirements set up by the ICANN Board”. This is not clear to me. Please explain. Thanks. EN On Jul 24, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> > wrote: As per Emily's request, I am forwarding my comments to the entire list. I had previously sent them just to Staff and the Co-Chairs 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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jhelle…> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked…> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ext] My comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:53:06 +0000 From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org><mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> To: judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com> <erika(a)erikamann.com><mailto:erika@erikamann.com>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org><mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> , ching.chiao(a)gmail.com<mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com> <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com><mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com> Hi Judith, Would you mind sending your feedback to the CCWG mailing list, or if you would like staff can do so on your behalf? Just let us know which you prefer. Kind regards, Emily On 24/07/2019, 20:45, "Judith Hellerstein" <judith(a)jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: HI Marika and Emily, I am attaching my comments on the auction proceeds draft document. It seems clear to me that Mechanism A would not meet the independent requirements set up by the ICANN Board but do not see this referenced in the report. Perhaps I am misunderstanding some things. I have also added comments about Mechanism B and C as well as other issues Earlier today, I have also added comments to the google doc you posted today on the list serv Thanks for extending the deadline to Friday. Look forward to the call on Wednesday 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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jhelle…> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked…> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide <new gTLD AP CCWG Draft Final Report - updated 28 June 2019-JH Rev.docx>_______________________________________________ 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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://nam01.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 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 6

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft
by Alan Greenberg July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019

Anne, there is no question that one can structure a foundation so it is "independent". My point was in all of the time we have been considering such a structure, we have never even mentioned this criteria - and its absence could allw us to create a foundation which is ultimately fully controlled by ICANN. It is this lack of focus on the important matters instead of the names that concerns me. Alan At 26/07/2019 05:17 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > >Regarding Alanâ€™s comment about the composition >of a Board in relation to Option C, I agree >itâ€™s clear that PTI is essentially controlled >by ICANN. However, the non-profit >corporationâ€™s By-Laws could easily provide >that the majority of directors NOT be affiliated >with ICANN. This would ensure independent >operation in accordance with the Foundationâ€™s >Articles and ByLaws as long as the >Foundationâ€™s staff was not hired and fired by >ICANN Org staff or the ICANN Board.

1 0

Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft
by Judith Hellerstein July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019

6 6

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
by Alan Greenberg July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

B was not an ICANN Subsidiary but some other existing entity that we could team up with so that we did not have to re-invent services that we could outsource. That being said, I am happy to eliminate it! Mechanism A always has the option of outsourcing some of the functions. BTW, under the California law that we operate under, a Public Interest Corp cannot have a "subsidiary", but that is just a nomenclature issue. Alan At 25/07/2019 01:35 AM, John Levine wrote: >>Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" >>should be "established as a public >>charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is >>being raised as in our case all of the >>money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it >>SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact >>meaningless in our case. >>It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what >>parts would be outsourced and what >>will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which >>must be outsourced). > >I believe that this is supposed to say that ICANN establishes a >captive foundation as a subsidiary. > >Having done exactly that at ISOC, I can say that for the CCWG's >purposes, giving away a one-time pile of money, this mechanism is >inferior in every way to mechanism A. It costs more, takes longer, >has a lot more bureaucratic overhead, and can do no more or no less >than mechanism A. As Alan notes, it has no tax benefits. It is a >waste of everyone's time to pursue it further. > >If anyone has a concrete reason why they believe this would be a >good idea, and is reasonably familiar with US non-profit tax law so >they understand what's involved, I would like to hear about it. > >R's, >John > >PS: ISOC's situation is quite different and it makes sense for us. >If anyone wants details write me privately.

5 6

Proposed text: role of the community
by Emily Barabas July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

Dear CCWG members, A small group of volunteers comprised of Erika Mann and Alan Greenberg volunteered to draft a proposal for the CCWG regarding the role of the ICANN community to include in the Final Report. Please find attached their proposal for your review and feedback. This input, along with all other input received over the last few weeks, will be incorporated into a revised draft Final Report that will be used as a basis for discussion on our 31 July call. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 3

New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
by Emily Barabas July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: * Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<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…>.

5 5

Comments on the Auction Proceeds report
by Maureen Hilyard July 24, 2019

July 24, 2019

HI Emily My brief comments on the Auction Proceeds report - sorry its late. Maureen

2 1

Deadline Reminder - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
by Emily Barabas July 24, 2019

July 24, 2019

Dear All, This is a reminder to please send your feedback on the attached documents no later than this Friday, 26 July 2019. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 20:24 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: * Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; * Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; * Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions
by Sylvia Cadena July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Hi everyone, I’ve completed my review of the document, and hope some of the comments here can contribute to the final report. Of course, I leave it to the group to see what can/can’t be incorporated as per previous discussions. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 4:24 am To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, In response to requests from several CCWG members to extend the deadline for reviewing the attached documents, your input is now requested no later than Friday, 26 July. The next CCWG call is still scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 17:20 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions Dear All, Following the new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on Wednesday 26 June, please find attached for your review the latest version of the draft Final Report. Also attached you will find the questions for CCWG input which have been updated to reflect the items that were discussed and/or resolved during Wednesday’s meeting. As a reminder, you are expected to review the draft Final Report as well as the questions for input by Friday, 19 July at the latest. By that date, you are expected to: · Have identified any issues that require further CCWG consideration or discussion that were not already been flagged in the questions document; · Have reviewed the issues and questions identified in the questions document that were not considered during Wednesday’s meeting and flag which ones of these do need further consideration and/or provide responses to these questions that the CCWG should consider further; · Have provided any edits to the draft Final Report (minor edits like grammar corrections can be sent directly to staff, any substantive edits should be shared with the list). As a reminder, the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting will be scheduled for 31 July at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<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