Marika, Thanks! Personally, I’ll be interested in hearing what the community comments are related to Section 4.1 and 4.2. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra On 8 Oct 2018, at 18:11, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that the public comment forum is now live at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018....
Best regards,
Marika
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:01 AM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP
Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period.
Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today.
Erika
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct. I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.
Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP
At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.
I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.
I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be inherently conflicted.
R's, John
Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds