On 2017-09-26 15:28, Marika Konings wrote:
Daniel, with regard to the second part of your question, the Open Internet definition, note that a small drafting team was formed during the last meeting to review the latest version, consider all input received to date and come back with a proposed draft to the CCWG in time for the next meeting.
Ah OK, thanks.
In relation to your suggestion, instead of using these to evaluate the current examples, these may be criteria that the CCWG may want to discuss as additional guidance in relation to the objectives?
Maybe those are indeed useful to evaluate the criteria of an Open and Interoperable Internet, with a focus on technical merits vs. social/political ones (global effect, scalability and stability being good criteria for interoperability).
E.g. priority is to be given to projects that have a global vs. local benefit / long-term vs. short term results, etc? I’m not clear on what the value would be at this stage to add these columns as the current exercise is focused on determining what is considered to be within scope of ICANN’s mission / the proposed objectives for fund allocation and not within scope – it is not about prioritizing the type of projects eligible for funding. That may be a later exercise, but not one we are undertaking now as far as I know.
I think we need to wait for the Open Internet definition to stabilize to see what is an objective and how prioritization will work on that basis. Thanks.
Best regards,
Marika
On 9/26/17, 02:16, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello Marika, all
Looking at the examples table, and remembering the discussions at our last call wrt adding more columns, I wanted to suggest the following additional criteria (which I wrote a while ago before we started the CCWG). They are somehow different than the ones we already have indirectly included in the second column (identifier related, capacity building, open Internet).
- global vs. local benefits (e.g. is this funding going to help all Internet users or just a limited population ?) - long-term vs. short-term results (e.g. infrastructure oriented vs. event oriented) - scaling effect of deliverables (e.g. ratio of fund granted over expected end-users benefits/saving) - difficulty to get funded by other grant agencies (e.g. by government programs, large foundations).
I'd be in favor of extending the current table with those criteria and also present the 3 pieces of the second column, so that examples are easier to evaluate.
Regarding the Open Internet definition, at
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...
I'm not sure what is the status of this page. It's still pretty drafty, with typos, duplicates, etc.
Is someone in charge of cleaning it or am I not looking at the right one ?
On 2017-09-26 00:13, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear All, > > As per action item #1 of our last meeting, please find attached the > latest Word version of the assessment of examples of fund allocation > document. As noted 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. You also have the > ability to add examples currently not covered to the table. To > facilitate your review, ICANN’s mission as well as the CCWG proposed > objectives are listed with reference numbers that you can use to fill > out the table. Note that ‘notes/comments’ column can be used for > any additional input you wish to provide. > > You can include your feedback in the attached document or use the > google doc version > (_https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... ). > The deadline for input is 15 October. > > Thanks, > > Marika_ _ > > _ _ > > _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 [1] > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _ > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_... > [2] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns... > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds