Please participate - CCWG AP straw poll survey - deadline for input Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC
Dear All, The straw poll survey is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll. Please provide your input by Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC at the latest. As a reminder, the survey is intended as a straw poll to assess the current thinking of the CCWG with regards to the different mechanisms under consideration. Prior to responding to the survey, you are expected to have reviewed the information and feedback provided by external experts see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B as well as https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7Z.... Also, please remember that key characteristics such as independence when it comes to fund allocation as well as transparency and accountability are expected to apply equally to all mechanisms. Based on the responses to this survey, the CCWG is expected to make a determination of which mechanism(s) should be considered in further detail in the next phase of work in which the remaining charter questions are expected to be considered (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw to review the charter questions as well as the work that has already been undertaken in that regard by the CCWG https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw<https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw>). Note that for the purposes of the Initial Report, which is expected to outline the proposed CCWG recommendations for community input, the second page of the survey asks you to weigh in on previously agreed preliminary CCWG recommendations as a result of some of the initial deliberations (see https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw). Please note that you will get to page two of the survey after you have completed page one. CCWG members are encouraged to, where possible, consult with their appointing organizations on the responses. Please know that the name of respondents and the results of this survey will be shared publicly (aggregated results, not individual responses). Thanks to those of you who provided input and feedback on the draft survey. Best regards, 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...>.
I don't know for others but for me, the last question (after the survey on mechanism, I had 2 questions on previous CCWG statements), didn't have a comment box, but only the "I still support", "I don't support" options. Anyway, I don't support this last one because if was done before we had the "in service" verbiage available, and before we worked on Open and Interoperable Internet (not just Open Internet). On 2018-05-05 17:05, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
The straw poll survey is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll. Please provide your input BY WEDNESDAY 9 MAY BY 18.00 UTC at the latest.
AS A REMINDER, THE SURVEY IS INTENDED AS A STRAW POLL TO ASSESS THE CURRENT THINKING OF THE CCWG WITH REGARDS TO THE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS UNDER CONSIDERATION. PRIOR TO RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY, YOU ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK PROVIDED BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS SEE HTTPS://COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG/X/BSW8B [1] AS WELL AS HTTPS://DOCS.GOOGLE.COM/SPREADSHEETS/D/1FPC9XJR4DCYS8CAUUC6C7O3J6P6HYYDU7Z7ZEDFZP_A/EDIT#GID=1740174763 [2]. ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT KEY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS INDEPENDENCE WHEN IT COMES TO FUND ALLOCATION AS WELL AS TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE EXPECTED TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MECHANISMS. BASED ON THE RESPONSES TO THIS SURVEY, THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF WORK IN WHICH THE REMAINING CHARTER QUESTIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONSIDERED (SEE HTTPS://COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG/X/DJJDAW [3] TO REVIEW THE CHARTER QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN THAT REGARD BY THE CCWG HTTPS://COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG/X/PNRRAW [3]). NOTE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INITIAL REPORT, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO OUTLINE THE PROPOSED CCWG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY INPUT, THE SECOND PAGE OF THE SURVEY ASKS YOU TO WEIGH IN ON PREVIOUSLY AGREED PRELIMINARY CCWG RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE INITIAL DELIBERATIONS (SEE HTTPS://COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG/X/PNRRAW). PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL GET TO PAGE TWO OF THE SURVEY AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED PAGE ONE. CCWG MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO, WHERE POSSIBLE, CONSULT WITH THEIR APPOINTING ORGANIZATIONS ON THE RESPONSES. PLEASE KNOW THAT THE NAME OF RESPONDENTS AND THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY WILL BE SHARED PUBLICLY (AGGREGATED RESULTS, NOT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES).
THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO PROVIDED INPUT AND FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT SURVEY.
BEST REGARDS,
MARIKA
_MARIKA KONINGS_
_Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
_Email: marika.konings@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7Z... [3] https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [5] 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
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
Anyway, I don't support this last one because if was done before we had the "in service" verbiage available, and before we worked on Open and Interoperable Internet (not just Open Internet).
I also had problems with that question. It should be obvious by now that there is no common understanding of what "Open Internet" or any variant of that phrase means, and even if we spent another year trying to define it there is no reason to believe that it would align with ICANN's mission as defined in the bylaws. Can we drop this time waster, please? If we need to define what we're going to support, cut and paste the text of ICANN's mission from section 1 of the bylaws and be done with it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
For a lot of us this is very important John. We worked long and hard on a compromise. Throwing it out in the way you describe below feels both dismissive of an important issue and misses an opportunity to provide a little more moral suasion in this exercise. I can tell you that one of the greatest frustrations experienced in the Cira process has been watching it devolve away from trying to support the Open Internet to simply helping good causes of any stripe. EN
On May 5, 2018, at 9:05 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
Anyway, I don't support this last one because if was done before we had the "in service" verbiage available, and before we worked on Open and Interoperable Internet (not just Open Internet).
I also had problems with that question.
It should be obvious by now that there is no common understanding of what "Open Internet" or any variant of that phrase means, and even if we spent another year trying to define it there is no reason to believe that it would align with ICANN's mission as defined in the bylaws.
Can we drop this time waster, please? If we need to define what we're going to support, cut and paste the text of ICANN's mission from section 1 of the bylaws and be done with it.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
For a lot of us this is very important John. We worked long and hard on a compromise. Throwing it out in the way you describe below feels both dismissive of an important issue and misses an opportunity to provide a little more moral suasion in this exercise.
I appreciate how much time people have put into this, but at this point it is time to say it was an interesting exercise, it didn't pan out, and we should use our limited time and attention on other things. There's no shame in an experiement that didn't turn out the way one hoped. The situation seems quite different from the one at CIRA. ICANN has reminded us that the money has to be used to support ICANN's mission, which is quite narrow. I completely sympathize with the desire to improve the world but if the improvements don't involve the root zone and root servers, 2LD assignments, "the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS", or IP address allocation, we can't do it here. R's, John
Thanks, Daniel, there appears to be an issue with the comment box and for some reason I am not able to add it back in. I've now added a new question that serves as the comment box. I will add your input as well as John's to your responses. If anyone else already completed the survey and wants to provide a comment, please let me know off-list. Best regards, Marika On 5/5/18, 16:53, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote: I don't know for others but for me, the last question (after the survey on mechanism, I had 2 questions on previous CCWG statements), didn't have a comment box, but only the "I still support", "I don't support" options. Anyway, I don't support this last one because if was done before we had the "in service" verbiage available, and before we worked on Open and Interoperable Internet (not just Open Internet). On 2018-05-05 17:05, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear All, > > The straw poll survey is now live: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_.... Please provide your > input BY WEDNESDAY 9 MAY BY 18.00 UTC at the latest. > > AS A REMINDER, THE SURVEY IS INTENDED AS A STRAW POLL TO ASSESS THE > CURRENT THINKING OF THE CCWG WITH REGARDS TO THE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS > UNDER CONSIDERATION. PRIOR TO RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY, YOU ARE > EXPECTED TO HAVE REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK PROVIDED BY > EXTERNAL EXPERTS SEE https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=HTTPS-3A__COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG_X_B... [1] AS WELL > AS > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=HTTPS-3A__DOCS.GOOGLE.COM_SPREADS... > [2]. ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT KEY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS > INDEPENDENCE WHEN IT COMES TO FUND ALLOCATION AS WELL AS TRANSPARENCY > AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE EXPECTED TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MECHANISMS. > BASED ON THE RESPONSES TO THIS SURVEY, THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A > DETERMINATION OF WHICH MECHANISM(S) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN FURTHER > DETAIL IN THE NEXT PHASE OF WORK IN WHICH THE REMAINING CHARTER > QUESTIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONSIDERED (SEE > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=HTTPS-3A__COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG_X_D... [3] TO REVIEW THE CHARTER > QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN THAT > REGARD BY THE CCWG https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=HTTPS-3A__COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG_X_P... [3]). NOTE > THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INITIAL REPORT, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO > OUTLINE THE PROPOSED CCWG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY INPUT, THE > SECOND PAGE OF THE SURVEY ASKS YOU TO WEIGH IN ON PREVIOUSLY AGREED > PRELIMINARY CCWG RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE INITIAL > DELIBERATIONS (SEE https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=HTTPS-3A__COMMUNITY.ICANN.ORG_X_P...). PLEASE NOTE > THAT YOU WILL GET TO PAGE TWO OF THE SURVEY AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED > PAGE ONE. CCWG MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO, WHERE POSSIBLE, CONSULT WITH > THEIR APPOINTING ORGANIZATIONS ON THE RESPONSES. PLEASE KNOW THAT THE > NAME OF RESPONDENTS AND THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY WILL BE SHARED > PUBLICLY (AGGREGATED RESULTS, NOT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES). > > THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO PROVIDED INPUT AND FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT > SURVEY. > > BEST REGARDS, > > MARIKA > > _MARIKA KONINGS_ > > _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _ > > _Email: marika.konings@icann.org _ > > _ _ > > _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_ > > _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _ > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_B... > [2] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D... > [4] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_... > [5] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns... > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (4)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Elliot Noss -
John R Levine -
Marika Konings