For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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...>.
Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-) Best regards, Marika Begin forwarded message: From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term 'Open Internet'. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN's mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
With respect to the below reordering, I feel strongly that it is quite limiting and effectively answers the question that we discussed in Johannesburg taking up with ICANN legal. Apologies that I was not there last week and I am not sure if it came out of that discussion. In any event, that is my thought. EN
On Aug 9, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting.
Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-)
Best regards,
Marika
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
• As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. • The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. • As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. • The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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[learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org].
<Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.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
Elliot, I am confused by your comment. "quite limiting" sounds negative to me (although perhaps you meant it as a good thing), but "effectively answers" sound rather positive. So I am not sure if you are happy with the overall statement or not. Alan At 09/08/2017 05:23 PM, elliot noss wrote:
With respect to the below reordering, I feel strongly that it is quite limiting and effectively answers the question that we discussed in Johannesburg taking up with ICANN legal. Apologies that I was not there last week and I am not sure if it came out of that discussion.
In any event, that is my thought.
EN
My thoughts ref. reordering Even if not considering as priority I believe we all agreed to separate an amount as reserve for ICANN. May be this shall be part as the reasonable before this distribution. Anyway I may considering this is something we have already agreed. Related to the reordering, as my view regarding Open internet , because this title can go too far into issues out of the ICANN’s mission, I would reorganize focus priority on "benefit capacity building…" but also with closer focus than the list of examples under this group. Other priorities have my entire support. Best regards 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 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 17:52 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-) Best regards, Marika Begin forwarded message: From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Dear all, as marika is in vacation period I am copying gnus-secs. My thoughts ref. reordering Even if not considering as priority I believe we all agreed to separate an amount as reserve for ICANN. May be this shall be part as the reasonable before this distribution. Anyway I may considering this is something we have already agreed. Related to the reordering, as my view regarding Open internet , because this title can go too far into issues out of the ICANN’s mission, I would reorganize focus priority on "benefit capacity building…" but also with closer focus than the list of examples under this group. Other priorities have my entire support. Best regards 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 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 17:52 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-) Best regards, Marika Begin forwarded message: From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Regarding the possibility of using auction funds to top off the reserve, I think that this is a discussion that we should have sooner rather than later. Although I support such usage, it may require an adjustment in our charter and as such, should be done relatively soon. On the objectives, I could not be on the call last week, but I find the overall objective (to benefit the development, distribution and evolution of the DNS) FAR too limiting, and in fact I have a hard time reconciling the first and third sub-objectives with the main one. I will be on the call tomorrow. Alan At 09/08/2017 04:52 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting.
Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-)
Best regards,
Marika
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org> Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: "<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
* As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term Open Internet. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANNs mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
Best regards,
Marika
Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tDapMCyEPERgK3OUBCM-LVhqt9Qij2TExRgQYYHh6Qo&s=Jh36Sq8p1r4ezpJmSOFgEvYkAmDwdDiDW2vbbIMrRVc&e=>interactive courses[learn.icann.org] and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tDapMCyEPERgK3OUBCM-LVhqt9Qij2TExRgQYYHh6Qo&s=aWnft1PhzwonnfCXkREYvSSP8xx19Kv_3cQQxxWgyoc&e=>GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org].
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf" Content-Description: Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf"; size=61222; creation-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT" Content-ID: <10DEF32523D59944AFC79A02961C4BD3@pexch112.icann.org> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/html; name="ATT00001.htm" Content-Description: ATT00001.htm Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.htm"; size=573; creation-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT" Content-ID: <81F88C40B39B534F90D6BE58AB55B4FB@pexch112.icann.org> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Alan, do you have any suggestions or edits that would meet your requirements for the overall objective, or alternatively examples of projects that you think should be funded but would not because of the current wording of the overall objective? Especially the latter may facilitate the discussion during today's meeting. Best regards, Marika On 10 Aug 2017, at 04:03, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Regarding the possibility of using auction funds to top off the reserve, I think that this is a discussion that we should have sooner rather than later. Although I support such usage, it may require an adjustment in our charter and as such, should be done relatively soon. On the objectives, I could not be on the call last week, but I find the overall objective (to benefit the development, distribution and evolution of the DNS) FAR too limiting, and in fact I have a hard time reconciling the first and third sub-objectives with the main one. I will be on the call tomorrow. Alan At 09/08/2017 04:52 PM, Marika Konings wrote: Reminder - please share your comments / feedback with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. Also, please read 'reserve fund' instead of auction proceeds in the third bullet point in the message below :-) Best regards, Marika Begin forwarded message: From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Date: 07 August 2017 at 10:32:01 GMT+2 To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf" Content-Description: Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Objectives redefined - upd 31 July 2017.pdf"; size=61222; creation-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT" Content-ID: <10DEF32523D59944AFC79A02961C4BD3@pexch112.icann.org<mailto:10DEF32523D59944AFC79A02961C4BD3@pexch112.icann.org>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/html; name="ATT00001.htm" Content-Description: ATT00001.htm Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.htm"; size=573; creation-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:52:43 GMT" Content-ID: <81F88C40B39B534F90D6BE58AB55B4FB@pexch112.icann.org<mailto:81F88C40B39B534F90D6BE58AB55B4FB@pexch112.icann.org>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:DVEFP8W+dbZwSxJ9XV9qowVXNsk00Ts1waiFKrz0YicRorO+r+M/F4onGohf17dP+UpEy1CfG11AfcpK7BjyNE4WNXTiTXERCDN3ADhy35cuwe1p6YQCl8cKq1JU+z8E X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Judith - I just forwarded to you all an exchange I had with Marika concerning the topic 'open Internet'. Please check whether this captures some of your points. Best, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible. I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network. However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot easily connect. Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, content take downs, etc. All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the 2nd time): - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption tools for example), - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, - digital security trainings, - etc The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to circumvent will be be able to connect). Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta here!! Regards, Arsene ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible. I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network. However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ 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
These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge caution here. From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali Sent: 10 August 2017 08:00 To: judith@jhellerstein.com Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot easily connect. Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, content take downs, etc. All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the 2nd time): - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption tools for example), - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, - digital security trainings, - etc The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to circumvent will be be able to connect). Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta here!! Regards, Arsene ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali> +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> wrote: HI All, I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible. I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network. However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible Looking forward to the call tomorrow 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 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All, Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that: * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place. You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. 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...>. _______________________________________________ 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
this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN organization and community itself. to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes sense and happy to explain more on the call. EN
On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge caution here.
From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali Sent: 10 August 2017 08:00 To: judith@jhellerstein.com Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot easily connect.
Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any reason be it, others to access and use the Internet.
Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, content take downs, etc.
All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN!
In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the 2nd time): - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption tools for example), - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, - digital security trainings, - etc
The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task!
For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to circumvent will be be able to connect).
Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be.
I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta here!!
Regards, Arsene
----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali <http://about.me/ArseneTungali> +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible.
I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network.
However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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...>.
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió:
this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN organization and community itself.
to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes sense and happy to explain more on the call.
EN
On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge caution here.
FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène Tungali SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 TO: judith@jhellerstein.com CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot easily connect.
Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any reason be it, others to access and use the Internet.
Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, content take downs, etc.
All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN!
In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the 2nd time):
- capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption tools for example),
- capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly,
- digital security trainings,
- etc
The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task!
For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to circumvent will be be able to connect).
Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be.
I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta here!!
Regards,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali [3]
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible.
I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network.
However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1]
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2]
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
* As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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]. _
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Links: ------ [1] http://www.jhellerstein.com/ [2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [3] http://about.me/ArseneTungali [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
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote: Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives. Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey. On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/> On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote: Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Sylvia, I’m sure the co-chairs will respond to your message as well but I can assure you that we are not at the stage of a consensus call. As the work plan outlines, a formal consensus call is only expected to happen at the end of the CCWG’s deliberations, prior to the publication of the Initial Report. The objective of our phase two deliberations is to achieve preliminary agreement on the charter questions that were identified as needing at least preliminary resolution prior to moving to the next phase, but as there are many interdependencies, a formal consensus call could only be held once recommendations have been formulated for all charter questions. The mind map is an attempt to further distill the feedback of the survey into a proposed approach with regards to determining the overall objective of fund allocation. The survey showed a clear preference for 4 objectives identified, but at the same time, some pointed out that not all might necessarily be objectives but more priorities. This is what the thinking was behind the mind map. The change from Internet to the Internet’s unique identifier systems was to align it with the language that is used in ICANN’s mission. As also noted below, everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the upcoming meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/21/17, 20:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Sylvia Cadena" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of sylvia@apnic.net> wrote: I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives. Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey. On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia_&d=DwIGaQ&... > - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation_&d=... > On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote: Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ 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
Sylvia, All - Let's debate all the comments made on Thursday. Sometimes emails are not the best way to debate and to argue opinions and comments. Like Marika said, we have no intention to come to a consensus now, we're only trying to define a corridor of options and scenarios based on your inputs. Looking forward to our call on Thursday, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 22, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Sylvia, I’m sure the co-chairs will respond to your message as well but I can assure you that we are not at the stage of a consensus call. As the work plan outlines, a formal consensus call is only expected to happen at the end of the CCWG’s deliberations, prior to the publication of the Initial Report. The objective of our phase two deliberations is to achieve preliminary agreement on the charter questions that were identified as needing at least preliminary resolution prior to moving to the next phase, but as there are many interdependencies, a formal consensus call could only be held once recommendations have been formulated for all charter questions.
The mind map is an attempt to further distill the feedback of the survey into a proposed approach with regards to determining the overall objective of fund allocation. The survey showed a clear preference for 4 objectives identified, but at the same time, some pointed out that not all might necessarily be objectives but more priorities. This is what the thinking was behind the mind map. The change from Internet to the Internet’s unique identifier systems was to align it with the language that is used in ICANN’s mission. As also noted below, everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the upcoming meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/21/17, 20:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Sylvia Cadena" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia_&d=DwIGaQ&... > - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation_&d=... >
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and
contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first
survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with
a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the
stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.
Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for
projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an
opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing
with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant
technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also
numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission
and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of
funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the
definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be
grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a
second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and
underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we
will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can
require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but
these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like
characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a
little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió:
this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and
should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN
organization and community itself.
to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was
using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents
and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were
simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes
sense and happy to explain more on the call.
EN
On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge
caution here.
FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène
Tungali
SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00
TO: judith@jhellerstein.com
CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review -
Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about:
Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is
very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot
easily connect.
Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any
reason be it, others to access and use the Internet.
Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet
freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance,
content take downs, etc.
All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and
development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the
DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN!
In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers
to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the
2nd time):
- capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet
shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption
tools for example),
- capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to
understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to
challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly,
- digital security trainings,
- etc
The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to
limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which
includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom)
and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this
broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task!
For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the
Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet
freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to
circumvent will be be able to connect).
Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be.
I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to
join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta
here!!
Regards,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali [3]
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein
<judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building
activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open
Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or
qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open
Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and
standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and
accessible.
I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network
that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and
ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for
civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an
active part in the network.
However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit
more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone
and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet
shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want
to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1]
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2]
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked
with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to
regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the
subsequent discussions. Note that:
* As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded
as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may
focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current
identified objective and priorities.
* The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or
explain the term ‘Open Internet’.
* As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic
of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund
allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It
will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion
that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later
date.
* The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the
lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been
suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient
detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed
example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this
evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed
regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of
examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been
scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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]. _
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=...
[2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...
[3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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
_______________________________________________
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
Sylvia, All - We have our so called leadership call today. We will review all your answers and comments, and will then send a reply later in the afternoon (CET). Regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 22, 2017, at 4:31 AM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/>
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió:
this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN organization and community itself.
to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes sense and happy to explain more on the call.
EN
On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge caution here.
FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène Tungali SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 TO: judith@jhellerstein.com CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map
Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot easily connect.
Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any reason be it, others to access and use the Internet.
Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, content take downs, etc.
All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN!
In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the 2nd time):
- capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption tools for example),
- capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly,
- digital security trainings,
- etc
The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task!
For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to circumvent will be be able to connect).
Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be.
I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta here!!
Regards,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali [3]
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
HI All,
I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and accessible.
I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an active part in the network.
However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want to make the Internet as Open as possible
Looking forward to the call tomorrow
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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1]
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2]
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
* As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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]. _
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Links: ------ [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ 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
Marika, Thanks for responding directly to my email. As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective. I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance: "The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure." I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded. I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread. Many thanks to all, Carolina El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/>
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ 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
-- Carolina Caeiro *Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects /www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry/
So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit. Sent from my iPhone On 22 Aug 2017, at 16:16, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> wrote: Marika, Thanks for responding directly to my email. As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective. I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance: "The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure." I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded. I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread. Many thanks to all, Carolina El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió: I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives. Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey. On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia> <http://www.isif.asia/><http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/><http://www.apnic.foundation/> On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofMarikaKonings> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofmarika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina@lacnic.net> wrote: Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net><mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali> [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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> [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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 [4] >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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<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 -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects <correolacnic15.png> www.lacnic.net<http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Thank you James, thank you Carolina, thank you All - we had our leadership call today and we agreed to send you until tomorrow some options how to define the "open Internet' cluster. We looked at all your additions and recommendations and we see different paths forward. Hopefully these options, based on your input, will help to clarify what we want. Have a good day/evening! Erika On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit.
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 16:16, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Marika,
Thanks for responding directly to my email.
As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective.
I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance:
"The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure."
I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded.
I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread.
Many thanks to all,
Carolina
El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/> <http://www.apnic.foundation/>
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofMarikaKonings> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofmarika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> <james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 <(202)%20333-6517> >> >> E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Carolina Caeiro
*Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects
<correolacnic15.png>
*www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry*
_______________________________________________ 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
this would be true if we were talking about ICANN the corporation’s day-to-day operating activities. it may not (and I hope is not) true with respect to the work of this CCWG. EN
On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:24 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit.
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 16:16, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Marika, Thanks for responding directly to my email.
As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective.
I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance: "The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure."
I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded.
I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread.
Many thanks to all,
Carolina
El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió:
I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives.
Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey.
On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made.
Regards,
Sylvia
————
** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! **
Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/>
On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review.
I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting.
I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> wrote:
Thank you Marika for putting this document together.
I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it.
My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges."
My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding.
Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole.
I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project.
I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper.
Best regards,
Carolina
El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>
>> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org
>> [ mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org ] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com
>> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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
> > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=...
> [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel...
> [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Carolina Caeiro
Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects
<correolacnic15.png>
www.lacnic.net Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <correolacnic15.png>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Agree with Elliot. We are trying to find a use for the auction proceeds funds that is aligned with ICANN’s mission, as our charter indicates. The Drafting Team attempt when working on the chapter was to allow the CCWG to find what that scope actually is, hence these discussions. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/> On 23/8/17, 3:02 am, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of elliot noss" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of enoss@tucows.com> wrote: this would be true if we were talking about ICANN the corporation’s day-to-day operating activities. it may not (and I hope is not) true with respect to the work of this CCWG. EN > On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:24 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 22 Aug 2017, at 16:16, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> wrote: > >> Marika, >> Thanks for responding directly to my email. >> >> As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective. >> >> I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance: >> "The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure." >> >> I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded. >> >> I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread. >> >> Many thanks to all, >> >> Carolina >> >> El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió: >>> I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives. >>> >>> Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey. >>> >>> On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sylvia >>> >>> ———— >>> >>> ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) >>> www.isif.asia <http://www.isif.asia/> >>> - Get started and submit your application! ** >>> >>> Sylvia Cadena | >>> sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, >>> "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. >>> >>> I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. >>> >>> I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> On 8/10/17, 07:32, >>> "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thank you Marika for putting this document together. >>> >>> I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and >>> contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. >>> >>> My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first >>> survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with >>> a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the >>> stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. >>> Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for >>> projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an >>> opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing >>> with internet infrastructure challenges." >>> >>> My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant >>> technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also >>> numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission >>> and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of >>> funding. >>> >>> Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the >>> definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be >>> grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a >>> second, independent objective as a whole. >>> >>> I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and >>> underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we >>> will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can >>> require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but >>> these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like >>> characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. >>> >>> I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a >>> little deeper. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: >>> > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and >>> > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN >>> > organization and community itself. >>> > >>> > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was >>> > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents >>> > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were >>> > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes >>> > sense and happy to explain more on the call. >>> > >>> > EN >>> > >>> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon >>> <james@cyberinvasion.net> >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >>> >> caution here. >>> >> >>> >> FROM: >>> ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >>> >>> >> [ >>> mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org >>> ] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >>> >> Tungali >>> >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >>> >> TO: >>> judith@jhellerstein.com >>> >>> >> CC: >>> ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >>> >>> >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >>> >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >>> >> >>> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >>> >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >>> >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >>> >> easily connect. >>> >> >>> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >>> >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >>> >> >>> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >>> >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >>> >> content take downs, etc. >>> >> >>> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >>> >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >>> >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >>> >> >>> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >>> >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >>> >> 2nd time): >>> >> >>> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >>> >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >>> >> tools for example), >>> >> >>> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >>> >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >>> >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >>> >> >>> >> - digital security trainings, >>> >> >>> >> - etc >>> >> >>> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >>> >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >>> >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >>> >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >>> >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >>> >> >>> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >>> >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >>> >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >>> >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >>> >> >>> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >>> >> >>> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >>> >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >>> >> here!! >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Arsene >>> >> >>> >> ----------------- >>> >> >>> >> Arsène Tungali, >>> >> >>> >> >>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>> [3] >>> >> >>> >> +243 993810967 >>> >> >>> >> GPG: 523644A0 >>> >> >>> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >> >>> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >>> >> >>> <judith@jhellerstein.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> HI All, >>> >> >>> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >>> >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >>> >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >>> >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >>> >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >>> >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >>> >> accessible. >>> >> >>> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >>> >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >>> >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >>> >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >>> >> active part in the network. >>> >> >>> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >>> >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >>> >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >>> >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >>> >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >>> >> >>> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >>> >> >>> >> 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 Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>> [1] >>> >> >>> >> Linked In: >>> www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>> [2] >>> >> >>> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >> >>> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >>> >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >>> >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >>> >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >>> >> >>> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >>> >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >>> >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >>> >> identified objective and priorities. >>> >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >>> >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >>> >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >>> >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >>> >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >>> >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >>> >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >>> >> date. >>> >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >>> >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >>> >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >>> >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >>> >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >>> >> evaluation will still need to take place. >>> >> >>> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >>> >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >>> >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >>> >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >>> >> >>> >> 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]. _ >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> 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 >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Links: >>> > ------ >>> > [1] >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... >>> >>> > [2] >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... >>> >>> > [3] >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> -- >> Carolina Caeiro >> >> Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo >> Coordinator of Development Projects >> >> <correolacnic15.png> >> >> www.lacnic.net >> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > <correolacnic15.png>_______________________________________________ > 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 Elliot. We certainly are not going to fund a new backbone network in a country, but there are other things that are technically infrastructure that may well be in our remit. I will give one example. I believe that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) can make a crucial difference in strengthening a city or country's Internet along with the potential to improve performance and decrease costs. And with a low cost:benefit ratio. At least in Africa, and probably other parts of the developing world, IXP are view by the local RIR as a critical part of building the regions's capacity. And if something is strongly supported by an RIR, I believe it implicitly is in ICANN's remit. I will address the overall subject in my next message, but I think it is absolutely necessary that we do not limit ourselves purely by the name of an area, but carefully see if we can link it to ICANN in a viable way to ensure that we get the most benefit from these funds. If the only projects that we fund are things that ICANN could have done itself if it had more money, then I believe we will miss a golden opportunity to make a real difference. Alan At 22/08/2017 01:02 PM, elliot noss wrote:
this would be true if we were talking about ICANN the corporation's day-to-day operating activities. it may not (and I hope is not) true with respect to the work of this CCWG.
EN
On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:24 AM, James Gannon <<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit.
Sent from my iPhone
Thanks again for this clarification. Checking the ICANN’s glossary https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/glossary-2014-02-03-en this is the definition of unique identifiers: “ICANN and its community coordinate and collaborate on the systems of unique identifiers used on the Internet. There are various types of unique identifiers, with commonly known types including domain names, Internet protocol addresses, autonomous system numbers and port numbers. ICANN seeks to facilitate the security, stability and resiliency of these unique identifiers to enable the proper functioning of the Internet.” I would like to know what are the CCWG thoughts on how Internet standards are part of the objective then? If we follow how the ICANN mission statement includes it, it says “in service of its mission” https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1 and that ICANN works with standards development bodies, but not sure how it is then reflected into the objective on the mind map, which has not dropped the ideas/suggestions about supporting the IETF, for example. There were suggestions in some of the previous surveys and charter questions documents collected before that supported that idea, but if the objective does not allow for standards to be supported, are we really ok to exclude that all together? I really hope not… I’ve always value how the 3 communities (names, numbers and standards) work together to make the Internet work, have having much needed funding for technical projects available for these 3 communities is really something that this fund can be used to make a difference about how the Internet evolves and grows. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 1:16 am To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - Objective/priorities & examples mind map Marika, Thanks for responding directly to my email. As Sylvia pointed out below, I understand that changing the text for the overall objective means we would have to revalidate it with all group members. However, I do not want to miss the chance to state what would be a reasonable objective in my perspective. I think the language around unique identifier systems works well. I would even add some direct reference to infrastructure, for instance: "The overall objective of the allocation of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds is to benefit the development and evolution of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems and Internet infrastructure." I would add that if we shift from just DNS to a more comprehensive objective framed around unique identifier systems, the word "distribution" in the original text (I think it read something like "development, distribution and evolution of DNS") makes less sense and can be excluded. I will catch up now with the emails about the definition of Open Internet and provide any additional comments on that separate email thread. Many thanks to all, Carolina El 21/8/17 a las 23:31, Sylvia Cadena escribió: I don’t think Carolina was asking to change it… the phrase use on the survey was referring to “the Internet” not “the DNS” and we provided answers and priorities based on that. Changing the text after the responses were provided will indeed change how many of us prioritize those answers and then the results of the survey are no longer reflecting what we thought about those objectives. Once again, unless I missed something, I have not seen a call for consensus from the chairs, to decide that this is indeed the objective defined. If I missed on that one, I do not agree. At all, not only because it is too limiting, but because it was not what the group expressed as a preference on the survey. On my email from yesterday, I asked for clarification about the purpose and use of those surveys. I do not thing that the mind maps are accurately reflecting people’s answers to the survey. It was very clear that the respondents were more in favor of support funding to go towards multiple objectives, not a single one. But it seems a decision about actually focusing on a single objective was made (?). It will be greatly appreciated if the use of the surveys is clarified as per my last request, and clearer input about how and when a decision needs to be made. Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia> <http://www.isif.asia/><http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation <http://www.apnic.foundation/><http://www.apnic.foundation/> On 17/8/17, 11:50 pm, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofMarikaKonings> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofmarika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Carolina for your input. In order to address your first point, what about changing the reference of DNS to the Internet’s unique identifier systems which is also the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws with regards to ICANN’s mission? Do note that with regards to the other topics such as capacity building, these are identified as possible priorities within the overall objective as currently structured. Please see an updated version attached for your review. I do note that some CCWG members/participants expressed concern on the mailing list that the proposed overall objective was too limiting. Everyone is encouraged to share proposed changes /edits with the mailing list so that these can be reviewed and discussed during the next meeting. I will also start a separate thread on the ‘open internet’ definition / reference to facilitate your input ahead of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika On 8/10/17, 07:32, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina"<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina> <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of carolina@lacnic.net><mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofcarolina@lacnic.net> wrote: Thank you Marika for putting this document together. I second Alan that the over all objective is far too limiting and contradictory with some of the sub-objectives that are listed under it. My first concern is with limiting funds to DNS only. When the first survey was circulated, I stated that "funding should go to projects with a strong technical component aligned with ICANN's mission to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Overall, in the fundraising scene, it is very hard to secure funding for projects with a technical focus so the auction proceeds are an opportunity to channel funding towards those type of initiatives dealing with internet infrastructure challenges." My answer was grouped under DNS development, but I actually meant technical/infrastructure issues more broadly: that is, domains but also numbers and standards. These are topics that are core to ICANN's mission and are the ones, that in my view should get a higher percentage of funding. Second, and as it is becoming evident from the discussion about the definition of Open Internet, I think this sub-objective cannot be grouped under DNS Development... a solution may be for this to be a second, independent objective as a whole. I am also unsure about listing "for the benefit of capacity building and underserved populations" as an objective. To me, we can state that we will prioritize projects that work with underserved populations, we can require that all projects include a component to build capacities, but these are not objectives in it of themselves... they are more like characteristics, activities or qualities of a project. I look forward to today's conversation to delve into these matters a little deeper. Best regards, Carolina El 2017-08-10 08:53, elliot noss escribió: > this is the heart of the discussion. our CCWG, in my view, can and > should go outside of the mandate that is acceptable for the ICANN > organization and community itself. > > to answer alan’s question (while not forking the thread), I was > using the word “effectively” in the sense of “for all intents > and purposes” i.e. by framing the mind map in this way we were > simply concluding on the narrow construction point. I hope that makes > sense and happy to explain more on the call. > > EN > >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net><mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >> These topics are so far outside of ICANNs mandate that I really urge >> caution here. >> >> FROM: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arsène >> Tungali >> SENT: 10 August 2017 08:00 >> TO: judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - >> Objective/priorities & examples mind map >> >> Thanks Judith for raising a point i personally care so much about: >> Internet shutdown! We are facing it currently in DRC and this is >> very limiting for people to enjoy the Internet because they cannot >> easily connect. >> >> Open Internet for me means making sure no one is preventing, for any >> reason be it, others to access and use the Internet. >> >> Internet shutdown is just part of the whole concept of Internet >> freedom violation which also includes censorship, surveillance, >> content take downs, etc. >> >> All of these practices are also refraining the deployement and >> development of the DNS because if people cannot connect, then the >> DNS has no reason to be spoken about. And that's ICANN! >> >> In terms of activities (i tried hard to include them in my answers >> to the survey but might have forgotten when i had to send it for the >> 2nd time): >> >> - capacity building to help citizens know how to circumvent Internet >> shutdown, how to behave in cases of surveillance (use of encryption >> tools for example), >> >> - capacity building in ICT policy to support stakeholders to >> understand the policy dvpmt process and be in a position to >> challenge policies that are not internet freedom friendly, >> >> - digital security trainings, >> >> - etc >> >> The concept of open Internet is very broad, we might not be able to >> limit it scope but we can agree on a broader definition(which >> includes net neutrality as well as the aspect of internet freedom) >> and then judge projects based on the fact that they fit into this >> broad definition or not. Which will not be an easy task! >> >> For me, Net neutrality (being able to access the whole of the >> Internet, at all time and by anyone) is somehow related to internet >> freedom (because when it is violated, only those who know how to >> circumvent will be be able to connect). >> >> Hope these help. Happy to expand if need be. >> >> I would like to send my apologies once again if i am not able to >> join today's call. As you know, we have issues with Internet outta >> here!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> >> Arsène Tungali, >> >> about.me/ArseneTungali [3] >> >> +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Judith Hellerstein >> <judith@jhellerstein.com><mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> I do like the mind map as it captures the capacity building >> activities that were discussed. As for the definition of Open >> Internet, I recall we discussed the following definitions or >> qualifications of the phrase. During the call I had defined Open >> Internet as standards based, adhering to the W3C guidelines and >> standards. It means that the network must be inter-operable and >> accessible. >> >> I also see an Open Internet as being more inclusive it is a network >> that is stable, scalable, agile, secure, profitable, sustainable and >> ultimately equitable. An open Internet provides the ability for >> civil society groups, indigenous communities and others to take an >> active part in the network. >> >> However, I also see the term Open Internet as encompassing a bit >> more such as making sure that the Internet is accessible to everyone >> and this also speaks of capacity building to avoid Internet >> shutdowns. Internet Shut downs close down the Internet and we want >> to make the Internet as Open as possible >> >> Looking forward to the call tomorrow >> >> 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> [1] >> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> [2] >> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> On 8/7/2017 4:32 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked >> with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to >> regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the >> subsequent discussions. Note that: >> >> * As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded >> as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may >> focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current >> identified objective and priorities. >> * The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or >> explain the term ‘Open Internet’. >> * As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic >> of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund >> allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It >> will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion >> that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later >> date. >> * The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the >> lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been >> suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient >> detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed >> example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this >> evaluation will still need to take place. >> >> You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed >> regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of >> examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been >> scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC. >> >> 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 [4] >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com_&d=... > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhel... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&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<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 -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects [cid:image001.png@01D31C1B.04F20160] www.lacnic.net<http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
Hi all, I am in a meeting and might be late for our call today. In relation with the mind map and activities, I am not sure if we are expected to provide a list adding other to what is in the mind map now. In this sense I would suggest to add capacity building activities related with the DNS and policies related with the Internet, including Internet Governance, For developing economies and underserved regions this is very important. Best regards and apologies if I do not show up today in the call. Olga 2017-08-07 5:32 GMT-03:00 Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>:
Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
- As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. - The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. - As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. - The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
Best regards,
Marika
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <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...>. *
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I am having problems with adobe. I am on audio only (phone) and can hear adobe audio, but you cannot hear me in adobe. I cannot see adobe connect. I will keep trying to improve my experience.
On Aug 10, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, I am in a meeting and might be late for our call today. In relation with the mind map and activities, I am not sure if we are expected to provide a list adding other to what is in the mind map now. In this sense I would suggest to add capacity building activities related with the DNS and policies related with the Internet, including Internet Governance, For developing economies and underserved regions this is very important. Best regards and apologies if I do not show up today in the call. Olga
2017-08-07 5:32 GMT-03:00 Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>: Dear All,
Per the discussion during the last CCWG meeting, staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop the attached mind map which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. Note that:
• As a result of this regrouping some objectives have been excluded as specific priorities but one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those areas could also fit within the current identified objective and priorities. • The mind map flags that further work will be needed to define or explain the term ‘Open Internet’. • As a number of you indicated in response to the survey, the topic of auction proceeds cannot be considered as an objective of fund allocation and as such will need to be considered separately. It will be up to the CCWG to determine whether that is a discussion that needs to be held now or whether it can be parked for a later date. • The mind map also aims to cluster a number of examples along the lines of the objective & priorities identified that have been suggested in response to the survey that seem to provide sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of whether or not the proposed example is consistent with ICANN’s mission. Note that this evaluation will still need to take place.
You are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC.
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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ 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 (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Arsène Tungali -
carolina -
Carolina Caeiro
-
elliot noss -
Erika Mann -
James Gannon -
Judith Hellerstein -
Marika Konings -
Olga Cavalli -
Sylvia Cadena -
Vanda Scartezini