Thanks, Daniel. I’ve added the language you provided separately as example #15 and removed the duplicate language. Best regards, Marika On 9/14/17, 20:10, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote: Hello Marika I think that there is a duplicate in the table, look for "25 women and 25 men " I don't see an example related to funding open Web standard development, just one for the IETF endowment, which is different. Can I add it to the table ? Or do you want some text ? On 2017-09-12 11:44, Marika Konings wrote: > In relation to action item #6 (“Staff to create google doc with all > examples received to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of > those examples is consistent with the proposed objectives as well as > ICANN's mission”), please see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... > [1] and add your comments / suggestions to the document. As explained > in the document, the objective is to review and analyze the examples > that have been provided to date in relation to new gTLD Auction > Proceeds allocation. As ultimately allocation needs to occur > consistent with ICANN’s mission as well as the objectives set by the > CCWG, you are requested to indicate for each of these examples with > which part of ICANN’s mission it is considered consistent as well as > which part of the proposed objectives. You may also indicate if you do > not consider the proposed example consistent with either ICANN’s > mission and/or the objectives. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika > Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> > DATE: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 17:45 > TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > SUBJECT: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's > meeting > > Dear All, > > Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG > Auction Proceeds meeting. For those of you that were not able to > attend the meeting, please take particular note of action item #1. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > NOTES - CCWG AP MEETING - 7 SEPTEMBER 2017 > > _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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D... [2]._ > > _1. Roll Call_ > > * Attendance will be taken from AC room > * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and > mute your microphones when not speaking > > _2. Welcome / DOI_ > > * Note that letter from the Board is on the agenda for today's > meeting - it already drew some discussion on the list, also from the > perspective of DOI. > > _3. Review redrafted objectives and examples_ > > i. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives > > > _ _ > > * Note latest draft that has been circulated. Is this now at a stage > where people feel comfortable to preliminary agreeing to this version, > noting that there are still some open items that need to be addressed > and may impact the final wording. > * Third item could be merged into first one so it would read 'Benefit > the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that > support the Internet's unique identifier systems'. Agreement to update > this bullet accordingly. Some wordsmithing may need to be done later, > but intent is clear. > > * Preliminary agreement by those on the call on the following > proposed objectives: > > * Specific objectives of new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation > are: > > * 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and > structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier > systems'; > * Benefit structures or projects that directly support the Internet's > unique identifier systems; > * Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, and; > * Benefit the Open Internet. [Note, the definition of Open Internet > is subject to a separate conversation] > > New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner > consistent with ICANN’s mission. > > ACTION ITEM #1: CCWG to review proposed objectives for new gTLD > Auction Proceeds fund allocation that achieved preliminary agreement > by those on the call (see above). If there are any concerns or > objections, members/participants are encouraged to share these with > the mailing list as soon as possible. > > ACTION ITEM #2: Staff to create list of preliminary agreements to > which this agreement and previous one will be added. > > ii. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open > internet’ > > * See latest draft circulated on mailing list just prior to this > meeting which aims to bring together the different versions and > comments that have been received to date. > * Is 'Open Internet' too identified with Net Neutrality? Consider a > possible alternative wording such as Open and Interoperable Internet > or open interoperable Internet. Not create an impression that this > group is trying to define a term which is already being used in other > contexts. Also make clear that it concerns a network of networks. Not > about defining Open Internet but how fund allocation might fit into > the broader scope of Open Internet. But some may just ignore this > nuance so need to consider whether to use different terminology. > * Some concerns expressed about some of the bullet points - CCWG to > consider whether all of these belong here. Also consider making the > statements more high level and moving some of the examples to a > different section / annex. Providing examples may also trigger > proposals that are focused on those specific examples so may not be > advisable. Examples may be helpful for evaluators though - could > consider not publishing the examples with call for proposals but as > guidance for evaluators or as part of an FAQ for possible applicants? > This discussion may be premature as materials for applicants and/or > evaluators are for a later stage. Focus on examples here is to ensure > that there is a common understanding on what the focus and objectives > of fund allocation is. > * While this group is focused on gTLDs, it should be recognized that > ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perhaps > this could become a neutral statement about the importance of an > online presence and providing information about all kinds of TLDs? > * Even though infrastructure is related to ICANN's mission it is not > part of ICANN's mission so it is not clear that auction proceeds could > be used appropriately on infrastructure. As such, it may not be > appropriate to include reference to items that are not considered > within scope of ICANN's mission. The funds shouldn't go to technology > that are completely independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc., > since this funding could be used against ICANN in the end, to create > e.g. another logical addressing system, names and numbers. Need to > look further into the question of whether infrastructure is considered > consistent with ICANN's mission or not. > * If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards > may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than > strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the > tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same > in the USA.? There are some proactive processes available through the > IRS though they may not be binding opinions. It is not just about the > IRS but there is also the broader ICANN community. If there is not > agreement amongst the Board and/or community whether something is > within ICANN's mission, it could result in an accusation of violation > of the Bylaws so there would need to be agreement amongst community > and Board about what is within ICANN's mission. Risk of expanding > mission statement through work of this group which may not be welcomed > by all. > * There is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to > mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds > > ACTION ITEM #3: Staff to circulate google doc link to the mailing > list. (see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... > [3]) > > ACTION ITEM #4: CCWG to review Open Internet Definition as available > on the google doc link and suggest updates/changes for CCWG > consideration > > ACTION ITEM #5: Sam Einsner to review language and provide feedback on > whether there are any concerns from an ICANN Org perspective > > iii. Review examples > > * Add examples that were circulated to the list by Tony. > > ACTION ITEM #6: Staff to create google doc with all examples received > to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of those examples is > consistent with the proposed objectives as well as ICANN's mission. > > _4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next > steps_ > > * See Board response received on 1 September. > * Now for CCWG to consider response, if any, to the letter as well as > how feedback is expected to be addressed as part of the deliberations. > * Re. DOI - importance of being open and transparent in all parts of > the deliberations. May require further statement / clarification. > * Main issue for Board is concern about perception. CCWG needs to be > transparent about any/all decisions. CCWG to consider to clearly state > if they have a certain interest in the outcome when stating certain > positions (for example, if you or your organisation is > interested/planning to apply for funding to support infrastructure > projects, make sure to make that clear when advocating to add > infrastructure as an objective). > * May be helpful to have a standard / regular legal briefing on COI > and what constitutes a COI? > * Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests. > Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a > mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of > the content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not > sufficient, it only allows to take the next step when it is needed. > This is part of the rationale of the recommendation that the Board > made to this working group to establish a mechanism to deal with > identified conflict of interest. > * Consider further during next meeting. > > ACTION ITEM #7: CCWG to review their respective SOI/DOIs and make sure > that these are up to date. > > _5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the > different options that have been discussed in relation to charter > question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and > evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, > within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on > this work; externally - working with already existing entities)_ > > * Xavier and Sam are working on a presentation which would outline > the different options (internal / external). > > _6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 September at 14.00 > UTC)._ > > _MARIKA KONINGS_ > > _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _ > > _Email: marika.konings@icann.org _ > > _ _ > > _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_ > > _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive > courses[learn.icann.org] [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer > pages[gnso.icann.org] [5]. _ > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... > [2] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e= > [3] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-2DL4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=Dkxpx-9v_lmST8dT4BsCgZ4DzZdNNXbllo3TkQMGExM&e= > [4] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=RS0a2YtoddIgSmVY4K6158dTrh2dPpm2gvaqgwoPpk4&e= > [5] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tPL3_x95TTCdtXsKHUab_oeQOjW18T3tNz46hS7-4eE&s=yN-lw6GEHmh5ZttIHoJnt0JXK2kCT-jlQlu_lTex8c4&e= > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds