Thank you James, thank you Carolina, thank you All - we had our leadership call today and we agreed to send you until tomorrow some options how to define the "open Internet' cluster. We looked at all your additions and recommendations and we see different paths forward. Hopefully these options, based on your input, will help to clarify what we want. Have a good day/evening! Erika On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit.
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 16:16, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Marika,
Thanks for responding directly to my email.
As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective.
I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance:
"The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure."
I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded.
I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread.
Many thanks to all,
Carolina
El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/> <http://www.apnic.foundation/>
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofMarikaKonings> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofmarika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> Best, >> >> Judith >> >> > _________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >> >> Hellerstein & Associates >> >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >> >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >> >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 <(202)%20333-6517> >> >> E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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 [4] >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d... > [4] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_... > [5] > 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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Carolina Caeiro
*Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects
<correolacnic15.png>
*www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry*
_______________________________________________ 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