On 2017-05-11 04:49, Sylvia Cadena wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hello Sylvia
The board approval/adoption of CCWG recommendations is part of the CCWG charter, which was the base for the CCWG to start these discussions. https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter
I know, that's why I'm suggesting that the CoI for the CCWG participants is not an issue: we are not really in charge. E.g. if we create a funding disbursement system that favors one or a few parties, vs. the wider net ICANN is looking for, then the board will just reject it.
Regards, Sylvia
————
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation
On 9/5/17, 12:30 am, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
In thinking more about the CoI issue wrt the board requirement of separation between the "strategists" (this group), the "funders" (the group that will evaluate proposals and give funds), and the "fundees" (the group receiving funds), it appears that the rationales we've used in the Board reply:
".. the CCWG is currently operating on the basis that as long as CCWG members / participants declare their intention to (potentially) apply for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds once the proposed mechanism has been approved by the ICANN Board, this provides for sufficient transparency and accountability in this stage of the process, as the decisions for final funding allocation will not be taking by this CCWG but by the mechanism defined."
don't really point to an important reason for the CCWG participants to be free of CoI issue at that level: the funding system being designed by the CCWG is not going to get approved by the CCWG itself but by the Board, the CCWG being only an advisory body sending recommendations, and the board holding the final approval.
Is this something we've talked about before and didn't mention in the reply on purpose ?
(sorry to come up late in the board reply agenda with that comment, but we can probably keep it as one more rationale on our side, in the CoI question bucket)
On 2017-05-04 19:55, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear all, > > The updated templates for charter question 5 and 7, per the discussion > during last week’s meeting, have now been posted on the wiki for > your review: https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw. > > Note that we’ve also created a page that includes the relevant links > to the work that has been undertaken to date to identify CCWG > member/participant expertise as well as external expertise, see > https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw. > > As always, you are encouraged to share any comments and/or edits you > have with the mailing list. > > Best regards, > > 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] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso > [2] > http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > 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
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds