I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position. That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds. Best, Jon

On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.

-James

-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Thanks Erika.

To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"

I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.

If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:

- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".

On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:

...

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

The fiduciary responsibility will always rest with the board and can not be delegated. Also the community does not drive the board beyond appointment, and the same risk evokes if we recommend a process or mechanism that in the boards opinion is contrary to h mission and core values. Doesn't matter that it was a result of a community CCWG they are still bound to reject it Sent from my

On 4 Sep 2017, at 18:40, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:

...

On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote: I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.

Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).

...

That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.

How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?

Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).

...

Best, Jon

...

On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG. -James -----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Thanks Erika. To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process" I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee. If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons: - they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".

...

On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote: Dear All - herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. Best, Erika ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org> Dear Erika and Ching, Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. Steve _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I agree to a point Erica. And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment, I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community. We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have. If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to. From: Erika Mann [mailto:erika@erikamann.com] Sent: 04 September 2017 19:20 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All - personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund. I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities. The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept. BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries. Thank you for your comments! Kind regards, Erika On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org<mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote: On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote: I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position. Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly). That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds. How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ? Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission). Best, Jon On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG. -James -----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Thanks Erika. To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process" I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee. If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons: - they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet". On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote: Dear All - herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. Best, Erika ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>> Dear Erika and Ching, Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Ditto. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-09-04 17:04, Anthony Harris wrote:

I agree with this statement from James. Too much can be risked if this runs off the tracks.

Tony Harris

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

I agree to a point Erica.

And allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,

I think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by the community.

We have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community, and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction funds could have.

If in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this topic when the community is ready for another discussion about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed to.

*From:*Erika Mann [mailto:erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>] *Sent:* 04 September 2017 19:20 *To:* Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>> *Cc:* Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All -

personally I believe we open a can of worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund.

I rather hope that we can find a diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the 'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project evaluators in the future to utilize maximum flexibilities.

The 'open Internet' concept, if it's turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators to understand the broader framing of the mission statement within a defined Open Internet concept.

BTW I do not agree that the current ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects, for example in the security and software area. And, so much more could be done in certain training areas, for example DNS software engineering, in particular if one would like to see greater participation in/from developing countries.

Thank you for your comments!

Kind regards,

Erika

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org <mailto:danield@w3.org>> wrote:

On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett wrote:

I agree with James here and don't think that the Board's position is a paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it thinks it can do to support the ICANN mission based on its current financial position.

Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand correctly).

That doesn't mean that the ICANN community couldn't do more to support the mission with use of the auction proceeds.

How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ?

Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to delegate some of their responsibility to implement the ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will certainly have to manage the granting process itself (adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its mission).

Best, Jon

On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of the response! But I think what the board is saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few times) is that the funds are restricted by the ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look at disbursements outside of that, the mission and core values must be changed, which being very honest is not something that will happen in the short or medium term future and certainly not within the lifetime of this CCWG.

-James

-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Thanks Erika.

To me, the important bit is this one: ".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the restrictions that the enumerated mission statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s work, that is a fundamental question for the ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board is holding the organization to the mission that the ICANN community developed through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"

I think our current discussions on Open Internet description shows a consensus in our group wrt to the mission enumerated statement being too limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the scope we foresee.

If we can get consensus on this point, then we can start making a case in front of the ICANN community that the auction funds are special for various reasons:

- they are supposed to be used outside of the ICANN regular operational budget, but are legally restricted to be spent only on these operational items (mission listing). That's a paradox in itself. - they are supposed to be used for the good of the Internet (which we are turning into "in support of the Open Internet"), which is a concept not limited to the ICANN mission - they are a one time event and extending the scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and role itself. - ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is value to ICANN (and its mission) to do a scope extension for these funds - ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws: "Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet" covers our vision of scope extension pretty well since it can be read as "Preserve and enhance .. the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".

On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co <mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com <mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org <mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Same reaction here Marc. I participate in this group with the clear agenda that some of these funds go to support Internet SDOs working for the Open Internet (which, btw, are the main driver for ICANN success in registering addresses and names). I worked for many of them in my career and may not work for the one I'm currently working now when these funds are open for granting. W3C, my current employer, may even choose not to apply for all I know, since it's going to be a community decision on our side. If you're at the table with the agenda of getting support for "exponentially growing cybersecurity threats", then it doesn't matter that you're working for an organization already working on this topic, and in fact, it matters that you are at the table to share your experience in this particular area. On 2017-09-05 16:42, Marilyn Cade wrote:

Marc, I am not sure you should leave.

I am just joining as a participant, and in my Declaration I noted that I simply don't know if one of my

advisees -- typically NGOs and ICT associations -- might not apply for future funding. I am also on the IGFSA Executive Committee and I don't know if IGFSA might apply for sponsoring funds.

But as long as we all declare our interests, and do it transparent, I think that is what is required.

I do think that it is different for those who participated in an auction who might lobby to have funding returned to them to offset costs that they incurred, which were clearly indicated as not refundable when they submitted a gTLD application, or when they decided to participate in an auction. But, even the Board of ICANN has many participants with many conflicts of interest. Some are more diligent than others in observing those and always acknowledging them, perhaps, than others. :-)

I think that transparency and honesty is our best policy. But, if we lose insights from a diverse part of the ICANN stakeholder community, we will become less informed.

M

-------------------------

FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> SENT: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:15 AM TO: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Conflict Of Interest, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Hi all,

After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on.

I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today.

Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity.

It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG.

Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats.

Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG !

Kind regards, Marc

Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann:

...

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: STEVE CROCKER <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I agree with Marilyn. There would be many of us who are in a similar situation. I am from a region of developing countries in the Pacific where there are very few representatives from the region itself within ICANN's volunteer community to represent end-user interests to, first and foremost, fulfil ICANN's mission within the region. But to do this will need support that may be outside of ICANN's scope so that it becomes a chicken and egg situation. Declaring this transparently and honestly is the only thing we can do. I see the potential for some really positive outcomes for end-users in developing regions, yet realise that the few internet-related organisations in my region to which I am connected in some way, are most likely to apply. It begs the question. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Marc, I am not sure you should leave.

I am just joining as a participant, and in my Declaration I noted that I simply don't know if one of my

advisees -- typically NGOs and ICT associations -- might not apply for future funding. I am also on the IGFSA Executive Committee and I don't know if IGFSA might apply for sponsoring funds.

But as long as we all declare our interests, and do it transparent, I think that is what is required.

I do think that it is different for those who participated in an auction who might lobby to have funding returned to them to offset costs that they incurred, which were clearly indicated as not refundable when they submitted a gTLD application, or when they decided to participate in an auction.

But, even the Board of ICANN has many participants with many conflicts of interest. Some are more diligent than others in observing those and always acknowledging them, perhaps, than others. :-)

I think that transparency and honesty is our best policy. But, if we lose insights from a diverse part of the ICANN stakeholder community, we will become less informed.

M ------------------------------ *From:* ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marc Gauw < marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:15 AM *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Conflict Of Interest, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Hi all,

After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on.

I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today.

Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity.

It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG.

Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats.

Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG !

Kind regards, Marc

Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann:

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224+ 31 20 888 4252 <+31%2020%20888%204252>marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I join those suggesting that Marc reconsider resigning.​ This is ICANN, where there is effectively no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you declare. Were ICANN institutionally to have real concerns about CofI, many PDPs would be nearly barren of membership and the RAAs would look ... very different. As a minimum. It is with the acceptance of this reality in mind that I pause to consider why the Board chooses *this* as the place to make a stand about “*Was this decision taken without conflict of interest?*”. That says more about the Board's attitude to this WG than the interests of our membership. - Evan

I guess you should Marc. Conflict of Interest is also some self committed to not make any proposal in self benefit. It is a question of Ethics and We bet on yours. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl<mailto:marc.gauw@nlnet.nl>> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 18:36 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Conflict Of Interest, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Ok, well, after all those warm words, l'll take the bet and continue :-) Op 5 sep. 2017 om 19:28 heeft Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> het volgende geschreven: I join those suggesting that Marc reconsider resigning.​ This is ICANN, where there is effectively no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you declare. Were ICANN institutionally to have real concerns about CofI, many PDPs would be nearly barren of membership and the RAAs would look ... very different. As a minimum. It is with the acceptance of this reality in mind that I pause to consider why the Board chooses this as the place to make a stand about “Was this decision taken without conflict of interest?”. That says more about the Board's attitude to this WG than the interests of our membership. - Evan _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I am just joining as a participant, and in my Declaration I noted that I simply don't know if one of my

advisees -- typically NGOs and ICT associations -- might not apply for future funding. I am also on the IGFSA Executive Committee and I don't know if IGFSA might apply for sponsoring funds.

That's exactly the case for me. And i believe that's why the Board suggested a best practice: keeping put DoI up to date! ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

On Sep 5, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Marc, I am not sure you should leave.

I am just joining as a participant, and in my Declaration I noted that I simply don't know if one of my

advisees -- typically NGOs and ICT associations -- might not apply for future funding. I am also on the IGFSA Executive Committee and I don't know if IGFSA might apply for sponsoring funds.

But as long as we all declare our interests, and do it transparent, I think that is what is required.

I do think that it is different for those who participated in an auction who might lobby to have funding returned to them to offset costs that they incurred, which were clearly indicated as not refundable when they submitted a gTLD application, or when they decided to participate in an auction.

But, even the Board of ICANN has many participants with many conflicts of interest. Some are more diligent than others in observing those and always acknowledging them, perhaps, than others. :-)

I think that transparency and honesty is our best policy. But, if we lose insights from a diverse part of the ICANN stakeholder community, we will become less informed.

M

From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:15 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Conflict Of Interest, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Hi all,

After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on.

I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today.

Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity.

It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG.

Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats.

Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG !

Kind regards, Marc

Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann:

...

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

and I will add to this that I am not (at all) convinced that giving away money with a broader scope than the organizational mission would risk non-profit status in any way. ISOC, nominet cira and NLnet are all examples to the contrary. I also respect and appreciate ICANN legal giving us their view on the matter AND they are deeply incented to take a narrow view of this question. I do not begrudge them that. BUT, we should be able to avail ourselves of independant opinion, particularly in dealing with $230m! hopefully that is enough for mark to hold off on his resignation until this issue is determined, because it is relatively simply determinable. EN

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on.

I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today.

Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity.

It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG.

Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats.

Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG !

Kind regards, Marc

Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann:

...

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252

marc.gauw@nlnet.nl

Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

+ 100 Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On September 5, 2017 12:27:34 PM EDT, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:

and I will add to this that I am not (at all) convinced that giving away money with a broader scope than the organizational mission would risk non-profit status in any way. ISOC, nominet cira and NLnet are all examples to the contrary.

I also respect and appreciate ICANN legal giving us their view on the matter AND they are deeply incented to take a narrow view of this question. I do not begrudge them that. BUT, we should be able to avail ourselves of independant opinion, particularly in dealing with $230m!

hopefully that is enough for mark to hold off on his resignation until this issue is determined, because it is relatively simply determinable.

EN

...

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on.

I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today.

Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity.

It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG.

Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats.

Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG !

Kind regards, Marc

Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann:

...

Dear All -

herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter.

We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time.

Best, Erika

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org>

Dear Erika and Ching,

Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017.

On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications.

Thank you again for your efforts leading this work.

Steve

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252

marc.gauw@nlnet.nl

Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam

_______________________________________________ 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 your approach Judith it is great to have people with good experience in our group. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Organization: Hellerstein & Associates Reply-To: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 16:41 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Conflict Of Interest, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Marc, I share everyone's comment and ask that you do not leave the group. You have much experience to share. I believe if you filled out your COI statement correctly that is all that is needed to be transparent. If everyone left the group over a perceived or possible future conflict of interest there would be very few people left. So please stay and contribute Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 9/5/2017 10:15 AM, Marc Gauw wrote: Hi all, After reading the Board reply with respect to 'Conflict Of Interest', it is getting obvious that the Board does not encourage that ccWG-members would also nominate for receiving/dispersing auction-funds later-on. I have to respect that, and therefor have decided to leave the ccWG per today. Note that NLnet Foundation over the last 20 years has been very active in dispersing our own charity-fund to hundreds of Internet projects, the last years primarily on open source and cybersecurity. It was our intention to share our 'Internet-charity-experience' with this team DURING the ccWG, AND to provide support with dispersing parts of the auction-funds to the right non-profit cybersecurity projects AFTER the ccWG. Now that it retrospectively turns out that the first support may exclude us from the second support, we have no choice than to leave the ccWG, since potentially receiving a (modest) part of the ICANN funds is crucial for our NLnet-battle against exponentially growing cybersecurity threats. Many thanks for working together with you, and all the best with the remaining work in the ccWG ! Kind regards, Marc Op 4-9-2017 om 16:29 schreef Erika Mann: Dear All - herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. Best, Erika ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team@icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison@icann.org<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>> Dear Erika and Ching, Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl<mailto:marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds