Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP
*Dear All -I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances." The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations". We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.I therefore recommend the following approach: We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote. Kind regards,Erika* What if we just ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Becky Burr < becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org> Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao, Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP). You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094
a fine approach in my opinion. EN
On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Kind regards, Erika
What if we just
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org <mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co <mailto:chiao@brandma.co>> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org <mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org <mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org <mailto:Correspondence@icann.org>>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org <mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org <mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>>
Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao,
Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP).
You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>
Thank you and best regards,
Wendy Profit
ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
<2018-10-05 Becky Burr and Maarten Botterman to Erika Mann and Ching Chiao CCWG-AP.pdf>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Elliot Noss wrote:
a fine approach in my opinion.
Under the time constraints it seems like the only plausible option. We can figure out later if there's any way that could work without impossible conflict of interest problems. R's, John
On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Having been following this discourse, the Board response is fine with me. Although I reckon listening to diverse perspectives in a meeting could bring about changes. Tola
On 6 Oct 2018, at 22:17, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Elliot Noss wrote:
a fine approach in my opinion.
Under the time constraints it seems like the only plausible option.
We can figure out later if there's any way that could work without impossible conflict of interest problems.
R's, John
On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________
I agree Regards Alberto Soto El 2018-10-07 04:32, 'Tola Sogbesan escribió:
Having been following this discourse, the Board response is fine with me. Although I reckon listening to diverse perspectives in a meeting could bring about changes.
Tola
On 6 Oct 2018, at 22:17, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Elliot Noss wrote:
a fine approach in my opinion.
Under the time constraints it seems like the only plausible option.
We can figure out later if there's any way that could work without impossible conflict of interest problems.
R's, John
On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President
Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com [1] M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________
Links: ------ [1] http://www.chacesystems.com _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Dear Erika Thank you very much fir the proposed course of action which sounds logical and appropriate to act Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Oct 2018, at 00:18, Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
a fine approach in my opinion.
EN
On Oct 6, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Kind regards, Erika
What if we just
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org>
Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao,
Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP).
You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
Thank you and best regards,
Wendy Profit
ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
<2018-10-05 Becky Burr and Maarten Botterman to Erika Mann and Ching Chiao CCWG-AP.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with the approach. Julf On 06-10-18 16:51, Erika Mann wrote:
* Dear All -
I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances."
The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations".
We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.
I therefore recommend the following approach:
We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote.
Kind regards, Erika *
What if we just
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Wendy Profit* <wendy.profit@icann.org <mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co <mailto:chiao@brandma.co>> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org <mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org <mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org <mailto:Correspondence@icann.org>>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org <mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org <mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>>
Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao,____
__ __
Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP).____
__ __
You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>____
__ __
Thank you and best regards,____
__ __
Wendy Profit____
ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations____
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300____
Los Angeles, CA 90094____
__ __
__ __
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hi Erika, Your suggestion is very sensible in this short and I support it, however, there are few discussion points particularly the need of board approval of the selected slate by the independent panel. Best, Nadira On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 5:51 PM Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
*Dear All -I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances." The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations". We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.I therefore recommend the following approach: We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote. Kind regards,Erika*
What if we just
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Becky Burr < becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org>
Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao,
Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP).
You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
Thank you and best regards,
Wendy Profit
ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
--
+1 it's a reasonable way forward Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, 12:16 Nadira Alaraj, <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Erika, Your suggestion is very sensible in this short and I support it, however, there are few discussion points particularly the need of board approval of the selected slate by the independent panel. Best, Nadira
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 5:51 PM Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
*Dear All -I'm forwarding you a reply from the Board concerning a question we asked a while ago. The question we asked was the following "What is the Boards perspective on whether ICANN the organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, can be an applicant under any circumstances." The letter brings up some new ideas (project evaluation panel), limits some options of SOs/ACs for potential applications and in 1. b. the Board points out that ICANN would not be required to apply for proceeds (in case there's a need) but would have a "fiduciary obligation to use the funds to meet the organization's obligations". We have to publish our draft report on October 8th, insofar we have no time to discuss this letter and its implications.I therefore recommend the following approach: We add a sentence to the Initial Report under the relevant charter question that says something like “the CCWG received this input (include link) from the ICANN Board in relation to this charter question but has not had time to review or discuss this input. It will do so in conjunction with other input received in response to the public comment period. And, we will annex the letter and/or include it in a footnote. Kind regards,Erika*
What if we just
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Becky Burr < becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org
Dear Erika Mann and Ching Chiao,
Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to the request for input from the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP).
You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
Thank you and best regards,
Wendy Profit
ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
'Tola Sogbesan -
Arasteh -
asoto＠ibero-americano.org -
Elliot Noss -
Erika Mann -
Johan Helsingius -
John R Levine -
Nadira Alaraj -
Seun Ojedeji