Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Marika,
Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments:
1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments."
I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better.
2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider.
I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body. However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes" Alan
Regards
On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC
1. Start of meeting roll call
2. Welcome & updates to DOIs
3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached)
4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached)
5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template)
6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template)
7. Confirm next meeting Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed 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 <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>interactive courses and visiting the <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hello, Well it's fine to communicate that the cost might be more than 5% but clearly indicating that to be 10% would have to be back with facts. I will be fine with rewording that section to indicate that the cost may indeed exceed 5% and leave it at that. As to the trust, yes you are right I read that part wrongly (was a quick read). Overall I think we should consider the cost implications of maintaining a foundation and also whether the foundation will continue to access funds beyond the auction proceeds would be something to consider. Ultimately I agree that a foundation may be one of the ways to get ICANN to legitimately spend the huge money(profit) she is making (as a not-for-profit "tax exempt" organisation). Regards On Apr 25, 2017 21:07, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Marika,
Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments:
1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments."
I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better.
2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider.
I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will *trust* and external body.
However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes"
Alan
Regards
On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org > wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC
1. Start of meeting – roll call
2. Welcome & updates to DOIs
3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached)
4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached)
5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template)
6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template)
7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed 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 <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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+ Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+ VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)( 520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I strongly agree with Seun. PLEASE let us not forget that 5%, is $7,000,000! And 10% is $14,000,000!! EN
On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Well it's fine to communicate that the cost might be more than 5% but clearly indicating that to be 10% would have to be back with facts. I will be fine with rewording that section to indicate that the cost may indeed exceed 5% and leave it at that.
As to the trust, yes you are right I read that part wrongly (was a quick read). Overall I think we should consider the cost implications of maintaining a foundation and also whether the foundation will continue to access funds beyond the auction proceeds would be something to consider. Ultimately I agree that a foundation may be one of the ways to get ICANN to legitimately spend the huge money(profit) she is making (as a not-for-profit "tax exempt" organisation).
Regards
On Apr 25, 2017 21:07, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Marika,
Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments:
1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments."
I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better.
2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider.
I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body.
However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes"
Alan
Regards
On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC
1. Start of meeting – roll call
2. Welcome & updates to DOIs
3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached)
4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached)
5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template)
6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template)
7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
elliot noss -
Seun Ojedeji