Hello Sylvia, That is right and indeed my intention in case I wasn't clear enough. However I feel it is the option we are going for that will determine what mechanisms/processes we will be recommending in our report (re: chart before the horse). Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 16, 2017 6:56 AM, "Sylvia Cadena" <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote: That is correct Sean, but we are tasked to provide recommendations about how the selected mechanism will in fact do the work. So, it is not enough to say we want to use A, B or C but to provide recommendations or at least a list of issues the selected mechanism administrator will have to take into account. The way I see it is like coming up with a comprehensive list of Terms of Reference for the administrator of the mechanism (whatever that is) to define the whole framework. ———— Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 3:42 pm *To: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <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 Hello, As I understand it, our job is mainly to recommend mechanisms to manage funds, we are not the ones to review applications, neither are we to approve funding. This is why I feel continuously interviewing funding/foundation organisation at this stage sounds to me like putting the chart before the horse. I personally feel we need to agree on an overall mechanism to use first at a high level, it is at that time we can then look into how to make that mechanism work. I don't know what else we will want to hear from external foundations about the 4 options we currently have[1] on the table as I don't think they can choose one for us, we have to do that ourselves. However I believe they can contribute significantly to helping us flesh out the details that will make the option we choose work well. Overall, I am open to us learning as much as possible, but I think we should not loose sight on what we need to do as a task. I will also like to request that the Chair let us know by mail whenever engagement of external experts is no longer voluntary. Regards 1. Infact one may say external foundation organisation may be "somewhat" conflicted in that because one or 2 if the options apply to them. Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 15, 2017 3:44 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: a. Review of updated examples document (see attached) b. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) c. Discuss next steps 4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 6. 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