Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC
Apologies Vanda for my auto typo On Nov 16, 2017 13:31, "Nadira Alaraj" <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote: +1 Banda, A real concern on this regards, American based organizations mechanism set-ups that they do follow the jurisdiction of the USA. Even ICANN itself does comply to such restrictions. A question to the expert how to make sure that American based organizations will not be constraint the funding projects in countries that are sanctioned by America. Such as Sudan and others? Because in the criteria of funding mechanisms in the document we do have "Fund allocation • Ensure that applications can be received and considered from different communities and parts of the world" Thank you Nadira AL-Araj On Nov 15, 2017 21:37, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ------------------------------ *From:* Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM *To:* Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika *Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC* 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: 1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November at 14.00 UTC) *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: **marika.konings@icann.org* <marika.konings@icann.org> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our **interactive courses* [learn.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3D7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM%26m%3DvepTnIDWQE-1_wU1ZNVYdsNAc6cx7b-vFjWlkUlclT8%26s%3DX3l3Apo_nTVALzVbUsINnj4dLIV2o2MTrJKgZrode0I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=5q%2BHPZ6kD5zcwPeb6%2FFjb5hRE0BiV5IJjIgteBtKWBg%3D&reserved=0>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> *. * _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ 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
Nadira, thanks very much for this clarification. I am aware of several NGOs based in the US, that are doing development work in such countries, but it is a good question to ask. M ________________________________ From: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:32 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Apologies Vanda for my auto typo On Nov 16, 2017 13:31, "Nadira Alaraj" <nadira.araj@gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 Banda, A real concern on this regards, American based organizations mechanism set-ups that they do follow the jurisdiction of the USA. Even ICANN itself does comply to such restrictions. A question to the expert how to make sure that American based organizations will not be constraint the funding projects in countries that are sanctioned by America. Such as Sudan and others? Because in the criteria of funding mechanisms in the document we do have "Fund allocation • Ensure that applications can be received and considered from different communities and parts of the world" Thank you Nadira AL-Araj On Nov 15, 2017 21:37, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November at 14.00 UTC) 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cdd64ea2f1b2a4785fc3608d52ce5c67b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636464287739992955&sdata=D8RGG13ruPPPaJ0DRxGXZzc5u%2FSL8BY55bZ1ojDVuFk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cdd64ea2f1b2a4785fc3608d52ce5c67b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636464287739992955&sdata=D8RGG13ruPPPaJ0DRxGXZzc5u%2FSL8BY55bZ1ojDVuFk%3D&reserved=0>
Let’s see the answer we get - I know some large Foundations can not apply for local projects here - don’t know reasons why not Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 16 Nov 2017, at 10:32, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Nadira, thanks very much for this clarification. I am aware of several NGOs based in the US, that are doing development work in such countries, but it is a good question to ask. M ________________________________ From: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:32 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Apologies Vanda for my auto typo On Nov 16, 2017 13:31, "Nadira Alaraj" <nadira.araj@gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 Banda, A real concern on this regards, American based organizations mechanism set-ups that they do follow the jurisdiction of the USA. Even ICANN itself does comply to such restrictions. A question to the expert how to make sure that American based organizations will not be constraint the funding projects in countries that are sanctioned by America. Such as Sudan and others? Because in the criteria of funding mechanisms in the document we do have "Fund allocation • Ensure that applications can be received and considered from different communities and parts of the world" Thank you Nadira AL-Araj On Nov 15, 2017 21:37, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November at 14.00 UTC) 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cdd64ea2f1b2a4785fc3608d52ce5c67b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636464287739992955&sdata=D8RGG13ruPPPaJ0DRxGXZzc5u%2FSL8BY55bZ1ojDVuFk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cdd64ea2f1b2a4785fc3608d52ce5c67b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636464287739992955&sdata=D8RGG13ruPPPaJ0DRxGXZzc5u%2FSL8BY55bZ1ojDVuFk%3D&reserved=0>
participants (3)
-
Marilyn Cade -
Nadira Alaraj -
Vanda Scartezini