Your input request - draft survey to gather input on charter question #2
Dear All, As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z.... Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Hello all I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries (I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects) Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion. Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ? On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z... [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59.
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 [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z... [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] 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
Thanks, Daniel. Is there a specific question you would like to see added to the survey? Best regards, Marika On 6/1/17, 01:30, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote: Hello all I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries (I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects) Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion. Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ? On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear All, > > As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing > charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting > CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team > to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_... > [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You > are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by > Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey > shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to > provide their input ahead of ICANN59. > > 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 [2] > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _ > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_... > [3] > 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
Daniel - I will reply to your questions/comments tomorrow - in my personal capacity. I'm traveling today and are in meetings. Thanks for raising these points. Greetings, Erika On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries
(I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects)
Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion.
Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ?
On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6 XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1ZLBCxF_2FnL8a_2Ff8iTnt5e4rNUUcbC9HhzkK [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59.
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 [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6 XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1ZLBCxF_2FnL8a_2Ff8iTnt5e4rNUUcbC9HhzkK [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presen tations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers _______________________________________________ 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
On 2017-06-01 16:06, Erika Mann wrote:
Daniel - I will reply to your questions/comments tomorrow - in my personal capacity. I'm traveling today and are in meetings. Thanks for raising these points.
Yes, good idea, although there is no auction f2f per-se but a regular teleconf, which I'll attend, with some participants in the room in S-A. When is a good time to talk next week ?
Greetings, Erika
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries
(I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects)
Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion.
Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ?
On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59.
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 [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1]
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] [3]
http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
Links: ------ [1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z... [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... [4] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
oops, wrong recipient, please ignore, sorry. On 2017-06-01 20:11, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
On 2017-06-01 16:06, Erika Mann wrote:
Daniel - I will reply to your questions/comments tomorrow - in my personal capacity. I'm traveling today and are in meetings. Thanks for raising these points.
Yes, good idea, although there is no auction f2f per-se but a regular teleconf, which I'll attend, with some participants in the room in S-A.
When is a good time to talk next week ?
Greetings, Erika
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries
(I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects)
Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion.
Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ?
On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59.
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 [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1]
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] [3]
http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
Links: ------ [1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z... [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... [4] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
On 2017-06-01 16:06, Erika Mann wrote:
Daniel - I will reply to your questions/comments tomorrow - in my personal capacity. I'm traveling today and are in meetings. Thanks for raising these points.
OK thanks, no hurry.
Greetings, Erika
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
Hello all
I think what's missing from this section on scope is the overall issue of all auction benefits going back to ICANN because - it has the funding - its mission legally defines its spending boundaries
(I understand that the funding doesn't have to go back "to ICANN", but to fulfilling its mission, but why would ICANN run the risk of funding other organizations for doing their job ? At best, ICANN would have to do damage control, and at worse, it could be replaced by someone doing a better job for the same mission). So in the end, it's likely going to be only ICANN controlled/satellite projects)
Originally, the auction benefits were supposed to help do good things for the Internet, not just good things for the DNS or IP ecosystem, but it looks more and more to me that this won't happen. Please tell me if I misunderstood or missed some important bits in this discussion.
Out of curiosity, has ICANN developed a list of things/projects that are part of its mission but that it can't fund today, or doesn't want to fund ?
On 2017-05-29 16:15, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [1]. Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59.
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 [2] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [3]. _
Links: ------ [1]
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z...
[1] [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] [3]
http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [4]
Links: ------ [1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z... [2] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [3] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... [4] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Thanks Marika. I have added my 2 cents to the review of the survey format. I am now working through the updated templates. Warm regards, Sylvia ———— Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 12:15 am To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Your input request - draft survey to gather input on charter question #2 Dear All, As discussed during our previous meeting, a next step in addressing charter question #2 (see template attached) could be by soliciting CCWG input through a survey. Staff has worked with the leadership team to prepare a first draft of such a survey for your review: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=dfpUrnoXn7_2BjCR6XiLIJ6MYfkl50X1Z.... Note, that this is just a preview, no responses are recorded. You are encouraged to share any feedback you may have on the survey by Wednesday 7 June at the latest. The idea is to launch the survey shortly after the next meeting so that everyone has sufficient time to provide their input ahead of ICANN59. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
participants (4)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Erika Mann -
Marika Konings -
Sylvia Cadena