Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles
*Dear All - * *We like to make some proposals that relate to the discussion you were having in various email exchanges. We discussed these topics in the leadership team on Tuesday and we do hope you find our recommendations helpful. We may have some time today at the end of our exchange with Sarah to talk about these topics.* - *In relation to the discussion about the preamble, we recommend the following approach: As discussed prior to ICANN61, instead of reworking the preamble at this stage, we recommend to defer this item to the implementation phase with an explanation of the purpose this preamble should serve. We should explain that part of the reason why we thought we needed such a preamble was to help future project evaluators to understand ICANNs mission driven environment. If you remember, we were worried that a too narrow understanding of the mission statement, would create problems in the future. In the meantime we achieved an understanding - with the Board - that projects that 'are in service of the mission'' might still fall within the mission and might therefore receive funding. In addition, the examples we collected, provide guidance for project evaluators on what is considered to fall within service of ICANN's mission. The details are subsequently expected to be worked out by the implementation review team (which will also consist of community members), supported by staff. * - *Additionally, we will have to send a reply to the most recent letter from the Board, the Board touched on this topic in particular. We will send you our draft for review shortly so we can come back to this discussion.* - *In conjunction with the previous point, we want to re-emphasize that the CCWG is expected to focus on high level recommendations that address the questions that are outlined in the charter. As such, we would like to encourage us all to focus on those high-level aspects. For example, there has been some discussion on this list on the size that the different tranches of funding allocation should have. We do not think that this is something that the CCWG is asked to decide on – instead, a CCWG recommendation could be that funding should be allocated in tranches with further details to be worked out in the subsequent stages following adoption of the recommendations.* - *Similarly, suggestions were made on the list to set aside funds to support ICANN to undertake research in a specific area. As noted in the charter, the CCWG is not tasked to make decisions with regard to which projects should be funded, instead, one of the charter questions asked, whether ICANN Org could be a beneficiary of some of the auction funds. Therefore the CCWG should focus on that question.* - *Of course, it is not our intention to stifle discussion, but as our timeline is short, we want to make sure that everyone focuses on what needs to get done in order to publish an Initial Report by ICANN62. As such, we would like to encourage you to review the input that has been received to date by external experts, both in the form of responses to the survey as well as participation in our calls, so you can let us know what, if anything, is missing to facilitate a determination of which mechanism(s) is preferred and should be considered in detail in the next phase of our work. If there is time remaining on our call on Thursday, we will touch upon these questions.* *Warmest regards, * *Erika *
Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at. Thanks. On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
DEAR ALL -
WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION, THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR. WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
WARMEST REGARDS, ERIKA _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hi Daniel - Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way: *We're tasked* to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete CCWG text below. *We're not tasked* in recommendations or determination with regard to specific funding decision. Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work. This phase we call 'implementation phase'. Warmest regards, Erika CCWG AP complete task ( https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en) "The CCWG *is tasked with developing a proposal(s)* for consideration by the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) *on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds.* That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board. As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal and fiduciary principles <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...> [DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest.* The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not).* The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1>, taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined in the charter: 1. What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds? 2. What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves? 3. What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo? 4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? 5. What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations? 6. Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under-represented groups? 7. Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose? 8. What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter? 9. What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? 10. To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds? 11. Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations? As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at.
Thanks.
On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
DEAR ALL -
WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION, THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR. WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
WARMEST REGARDS, ERIKA _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Dear Judith he may not be able to reply to our questions - time constraints. But I believe it's still important to have an exchange with him. He's one of the organizations that has a well established oversight structure to another entity and he has zero conflict to our area. I hope this will be accepted by our group. I have prep-call setup with him on Monday to give him some insight into our work and I will try to get him to reply to our questions but, he simply may not have the time. Kind regards, Erika On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com
wrote:
HI Erika,
Thanks for the call today. It was helpful. You mentioned that our next call we will hear from a person from the European Investment Bank. I do not see his responses on the wiki
https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Responses+received
I would greatly appreciate if you can post them here.
Thanks
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+20008&entry...> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/12/2018 11:56 AM, Erika Mann wrote:
Hi Daniel -
Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:
*We're tasked* to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete CCWG text below.
*We're not tasked* in recommendations or determination with regard to specific funding decision.
Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work. This phase we call 'implementation phase'.
Warmest regards,
Erika
CCWG AP complete task (https://www.icann.org/news/ announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)
"The CCWG *is tasked with developing a proposal(s)* for consideration by the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) *on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds.* That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.
As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal and fiduciary principles <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...> [DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest.* The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not).*
The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1>, taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined in the charter:
1. What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds? 2. What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves? 3. What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo? 4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? 5. What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations? 6. Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under-represented groups? 7. Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose? 8. What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter? 9. What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? 10. To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds? 11. Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations?
As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at.
Thanks.
On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
DEAR ALL -
WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION, THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR. WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
WARMEST REGARDS, ERIKA _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hello Erika, thanks for the quick answer On 2018-04-12 17:56, Erika Mann wrote:
Hi Daniel -
Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:
WE'RE TASKED to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete CCWG text below.
WE'RE NOT TASKED in recommendations or determination with regard to specific funding decision.
Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work. This phase we call 'implementation phase'.
I don't remember raising any specific funding recommendations, or are you thinking that pushing for a guiding preamble falls in that category ? Someone (Vanda I think) raised the urgency of some development related to security/stability of the DNS resolution infrastructure, and I agree this is too early in the process to set aside any funding for anyone, but clearly this is a good idea and it should be added to the examples table. I still don't understand why you want to abandon the preamble, apparently because it needs some work (as noted by the board, which never suggested to abandon it), or because the timing doesn't allow for it (we keep pushing our deadline for other valid reasons, like hearing more external experts on mechanism). Going from an initial scope of "doing good for the internet while not endangering ICANN status" to "being in service of the ICANN mission" seems like a regression to me, we don't even talk about the Internet anymore (nor to mention what good means for the internet, which was the focus of the preamble).
Warmest regards,
Erika
CCWG AP complete task (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)
"The CCWG IS TASKED WITH DEVELOPING A PROPOSAL(S) for consideration by the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) ON THE MECHANISM THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO ALLOCATE THE NEW GTLD AUCTION PROCEEDS. That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.
As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal and fiduciary principles [2][DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. THE CCWG WILL NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR DETERMINATIONS WITH REGARDS TO SPECIFIC FUNDING DECISIONS (I.E. WHICH SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS OR PROJECTS ARE TO BE FUNDED OR NOT).
The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions1 [3], taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined in the charter:
* What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds? * What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves? * What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo? * What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? * What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations? * Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under-represented groups? * Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose? * What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter? * What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? * To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds? * Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations?
As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at.
Thanks.
On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
DEAR ALL -
WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION, THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR. WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
WARMEST REGARDS, ERIKA _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425839&api=v2 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1
Thank you Daniel - I don't want to abandon the preamble, I just believe we will not be able to find a common understanding - in the time we have available - that will be supported by the community and the board and, that will survive the public comment phase related to our recommendations. Therefore, we're proposing to forward the preamble with explanation to the next phase, the implementation phase. But let's discuss this, we're only making a recommendation. If the group wants to follow a different path, we will adjust. Erika On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello Erika, thanks for the quick answer
On 2018-04-12 17:56, Erika Mann wrote:
Hi Daniel -
Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:
WE'RE TASKED to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete CCWG text below.
WE'RE NOT TASKED in recommendations or determination with regard to specific funding decision.
Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work. This phase we call 'implementation phase'.
I don't remember raising any specific funding recommendations, or are you thinking that pushing for a guiding preamble falls in that category ?
Someone (Vanda I think) raised the urgency of some development related to security/stability of the DNS resolution infrastructure, and I agree this is too early in the process to set aside any funding for anyone, but clearly this is a good idea and it should be added to the examples table.
I still don't understand why you want to abandon the preamble, apparently because it needs some work (as noted by the board, which never suggested to abandon it), or because the timing doesn't allow for it (we keep pushing our deadline for other valid reasons, like hearing more external experts on mechanism).
Going from an initial scope of "doing good for the internet while not endangering ICANN status" to "being in service of the ICANN mission" seems like a regression to me, we don't even talk about the Internet anymore (nor to mention what good means for the internet, which was the focus of the preamble).
Warmest regards,
Erika
CCWG AP complete task (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)
"The CCWG IS TASKED WITH DEVELOPING A PROPOSAL(S) for consideration by the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) ON THE MECHANISM THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO ALLOCATE THE NEW GTLD AUCTION PROCEEDS. That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.
As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal and fiduciary principles [2][DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. THE CCWG WILL NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR DETERMINATIONS WITH REGARDS TO SPECIFIC FUNDING DECISIONS (I.E. WHICH SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS OR PROJECTS ARE TO BE FUNDED OR NOT).
The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions1 [3], taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined in the charter:
* What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds? * What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves? * What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo? * What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? * What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations? * Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under-represented groups? * Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose? * What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter? * What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? * To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds? * Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible
adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations?
As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the
implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at.
Thanks.
On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:
DEAR ALL -
WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION, THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR. WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON – INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.
* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.
WARMEST REGARDS, ERIKA _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/Ma y%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter% 20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles- UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425839&api=v2 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en#foot1
Since I am not able ( webex nor phone call is working today for me even restarting my MAC) I would like to agree with this Approach. I understand details in this phase will just postpone the process to be followed in the implementation, where we can go deeply into those points. I am sorry could not attend the call even trying for so long… Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:44 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles Dear All - We like to make some proposals that relate to the discussion you were having in various email exchanges. We discussed these topics in the leadership team on Tuesday and we do hope you find our recommendations helpful. We may have some time today at the end of our exchange with Sarah to talk about these topics. · In relation to the discussion about the preamble, we recommend the following approach: As discussed prior to ICANN61, instead of reworking the preamble at this stage, we recommend to defer this item to the implementation phase with an explanation of the purpose this preamble should serve. We should explain that part of the reason why we thought we needed such a preamble was to help future project evaluators to understand ICANNs mission driven environment. If you remember, we were worried that a too narrow understanding of the mission statement, would create problems in the future. In the meantime we achieved an understanding - with the Board - that projects that 'are in service of the mission'' might still fall within the mission and might therefore receive funding. In addition, the examples we collected, provide guidance for project evaluators on what is considered to fall within service of ICANN's mission. The details are subsequently expected to be worked out by the implementation review team (which will also consist of community members), supported by staff. · Additionally, we will have to send a reply to the most recent letter from the Board, the Board touched on this topic in particular. We will send you our draft for review shortly so we can come back to this discussion. · In conjunction with the previous point, we want to re-emphasize that the CCWG is expected to focus on high level recommendations that address the questions that are outlined in the charter. As such, we would like to encourage us all to focus on those high-level aspects. For example, there has been some discussion on this list on the size that the different tranches of funding allocation should have. We do not think that this is something that the CCWG is asked to decide on – instead, a CCWG recommendation could be that funding should be allocated in tranches with further details to be worked out in the subsequent stages following adoption of the recommendations. · Similarly, suggestions were made on the list to set aside funds to support ICANN to undertake research in a specific area. As noted in the charter, the CCWG is not tasked to make decisions with regard to which projects should be funded, instead, one of the charter questions asked, whether ICANN Org could be a beneficiary of some of the auction funds. Therefore the CCWG should focus on that question. · Of course, it is not our intention to stifle discussion, but as our timeline is short, we want to make sure that everyone focuses on what needs to get done in order to publish an Initial Report by ICANN62. As such, we would like to encourage you to review the input that has been received to date by external experts, both in the form of responses to the survey as well as participation in our calls, so you can let us know what, if anything, is missing to facilitate a determination of which mechanism(s) is preferred and should be considered in detail in the next phase of our work. If there is time remaining on our call on Thursday, we will touch upon these questions. Warmest regards, Erika
Really, really sorry Vanda that you could not join us and that I did not notice your email earlier. WebEx is painful to handle. I send an email to Daniel few minutes ago that reminds us about the different phases of the CCWG work to setup a funding mechanism. And, yes, you're right, the details about certain more specific funding decisions should be debated and decided upon in the 'implementation phase' - the phase that follows our work. Thank you! Erika On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
Since I am not able ( webex nor phone call is working today for me even restarting my MAC) I would like to agree with this Approach.
I understand details in this phase will just postpone the process to be followed in the implementation, where we can go deeply into those points.
I am sorry could not attend the call even trying for so long…
Kisses
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> *Date: *Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:44 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles
*Dear All - *
*We like to make some proposals that relate to the discussion you were having in various email exchanges. We discussed these topics in the leadership team on Tuesday and we do hope you find our recommendations helpful. We may have some time today at the end of our exchange with Sarah to talk about these topics.*
· *In relation to the discussion about the preamble, we recommend the following approach: A**s discussed prior to ICANN61, **instead of reworking the preamble at this stage, we recommend to defer this item to the implementation phase with an explanation of the purpose this preamble should serve. We should explain that part of the reason why we thought we needed such a preamble was to help future project evaluators to understand ICANNs mission driven environment. If you remember, we were worried that a too narrow understanding of the mission statement, would create problems in the future. In the meantime we achieved an understanding - with the Board - that projects that 'are in service of the mission'' might still fall within the mission and might therefore receive funding. In addition, the examples we collected, provide guidance for project evaluators on what is considered to fall within service of ICANN's mission. The details are subsequently expected to be worked out by the implementation review team (which will also consist of community members), supported by staff. *
· *Additionally, we will have to send a reply to the most recent letter from the Board, the Board touched on this topic in particular. We will send you our draft for review shortly so we can come back to this discussion.*
· *In conjunction with the previous point, we want to re-emphasize that the CCWG is expected to focus on high level recommendations that address the questions that are outlined in the charter. As such, we would like to encourage us all to focus on those high-level aspects. For example, there has been some discussion on this list on the size that the different tranches of funding allocation should have. We do not think that this is something that the CCWG is asked to decide on – instead, a CCWG recommendation could be that funding should be allocated in tranches with further details to be worked out in the subsequent stages following adoption of the recommendations.*
· *Similarly, suggestions were made on the list to set aside funds to support ICANN to undertake research in a specific area. As noted in the charter, the CCWG is not tasked to make decisions with regard to which projects should be funded, instead, one of the charter questions asked, whether ICANN Org could be a beneficiary of some of the auction funds. Therefore the CCWG should focus on that question.*
· *Of course, it is not our intention to stifle discussion, but as our timeline is short, we want to make sure that everyone focuses on what needs to get done in order to publish an Initial Report by ICANN62. As such, we would like to encourage you to review the input that has been received to date by external experts, both in the form of responses to the survey as well as participation in our calls, so you can let us know what, if anything, is missing to facilitate a determination of which mechanism(s) is preferred and should be considered in detail in the next phase of our work. If there is time remaining on our call** on Thursday, we will touch upon these questions.*
*Warmest regards, *
*Erika *
participants (4)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Erika Mann -
Judith Hellerstein -
Vanda Scartezini