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>
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM
To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade
Cc: 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds