For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
Dear All, Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest. Thanks, 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...>.
Hi Marika, There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like: * “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”. I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)). Thanks. EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying. @Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap. Thanks, Erika On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
On 2017-04-19 22:00, Erika Mann wrote:
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
+1 to raising this issue explicitly. I'd go even further and say that the desire to cast a wide net is ICANN's desire in the first place. Also, I think attorn is too strong/legally charged a word, and would use acknowledge instead. I would also explain why this limit is an issue. That would give this paragraph: "We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of aiignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN." Also, there is a typo in "Organzation"
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks, Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _ <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
Links: ------ [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... [3] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
+1 ..... perfectly phrased Op 20-4-2017 om 13:13 schreef Daniel Dardailler:
On 2017-04-19 22:00, Erika Mann wrote:
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
+1 to raising this issue explicitly.
I'd go even further and say that the desire to cast a wide net is ICANN's desire in the first place.
Also, I think attorn is too strong/legally charged a word, and would use acknowledge instead.
I would also explain why this limit is an issue.
That would give this paragraph:
"We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of aiignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN."
Also, there is a typo in "Organzation"
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks, Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _ <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
Links: ------ [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] 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
-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam
I would not be opposed to the addition of: "detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN” but I did want to stick what was, not what the implication would be. I prefer them to draw their own conclusions. thanks. EN
On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> wrote:
+1 ..... perfectly phrased
Op 20-4-2017 om 13:13 schreef Daniel Dardailler:
On 2017-04-19 22:00, Erika Mann wrote:
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
+1 to raising this issue explicitly.
I'd go even further and say that the desire to cast a wide net is ICANN's desire in the first place.
Also, I think attorn is too strong/legally charged a word, and would use acknowledge instead.
I would also explain why this limit is an issue.
That would give this paragraph:
"We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of aiignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN."
Also, there is a typo in "Organzation"
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks, Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _ <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
Links: ------ [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] 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
-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hi all, I like Elliot and Erica's wording better, but not opposed to Daniel 's additions Best Judith Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:36 AM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
I would not be opposed to the addition of:
"detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN”
but I did want to stick what was, not what the implication would be. I prefer them to draw their own conclusions. thanks.
EN
On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> wrote:
+1 ..... perfectly phrased
Op 20-4-2017 om 13:13 schreef Daniel Dardailler:
On 2017-04-19 22:00, Erika Mann wrote:
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
+1 to raising this issue explicitly.
I'd go even further and say that the desire to cast a wide net is ICANN's desire in the first place.
Also, I think attorn is too strong/legally charged a word, and would use acknowledge instead.
I would also explain why this limit is an issue.
That would give this paragraph:
"We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of aiignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN."
Also, there is a typo in "Organzation"
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks, Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _ <CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
Links: ------ [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
[3] 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
-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Elliot Appreciate your suggestion. I believe yes, that is important to make it quite clear to avoid future embarrassment. The text may be improved to make it quite clear when translated to other languages, but as a non-English native will not suggest any changes. Best, 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. HAPPY 2017! From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM To: E Noss <enoss@tucows.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying. @Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap. Thanks, Erika On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com<mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> wrote: Hi Marika, There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like: * “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”. I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)). Thanks. EN On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest. Thanks, 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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
I have incorporated the small changes around typos to the text attached and added a couple of small edits (just for clarification), see attached. I was trying to incorporate the text of the paragraph change proposed below that talks about the “wide net” but I was not able to do so, because on the letter, the “wide net” refers to have a large number of people from different stakeholders participating in the process. However, the text below refers (if I understand it correctly) about the themes/topics/types of projects/initiatives to fund, as a congruence with ICANN’s mission is mentioned? Am I understanding this the wrong way? The existing text on the letter says: The CCWG supports the Board’s recommendation that a wide net should be cast and is happy to report that in addition to the members appointed by the CCWG Chartering Organizations, 45 participants and over 20 observers have signed up for this effort, many of which have no direct affiliation with ICANN SO/ACs. The CCWG recognizes that in addition to participation in the CCWG deliberations there is also the question of who will eventually be eligible to apply for the funds which is something that is expected to be addressed as part of its deliberations on the charter questions. The change/addition proposed is below, and although I see the point, I don’t really see how to merge the 2 together as they about 2 different things. We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of alignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN. My suggestion will be to have 2 paragraphs, one about the wide net for stakeholders to engage, and a second one about looking at a wide range of topics/themes that might benefit the development of the Internet and the tension between that very important objective, and the need/desire to be aligned with ICANN’s mission. Warm regards, Sylvia ———— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs sylvia@apnic.net | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia http://www.isif.asia FB ISIF.Asia @ISIF_Asia From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 11:56 pm To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board Elliot Appreciate your suggestion. I believe yes, that is important to make it quite clear to avoid future embarrassment. The text may be improved to make it quite clear when translated to other languages, but as a non-English native will not suggest any changes. Best, 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. HAPPY 2017! From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM To: E Noss <enoss@tucows.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying. @Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap. Thanks, Erika On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com<mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> wrote: Hi Marika, There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like: * “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”. I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)). Thanks. EN On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest. Thanks, 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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Sylvia Good catch. if "wide net" is already used, let's use use another term. e.g. "We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to support a wide range of topics/themes that might benefit the development of the Internet, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of alignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the overall scope and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN." On 2017-04-21 06:23, Sylvia Cadena wrote:
I have incorporated the small changes around typos to the text attached and added a couple of small edits (just for clarification), see attached.
I was trying to incorporate the text of the paragraph change proposed below that talks about the “wide net” but I was not able to do so, because on the letter, the “wide net” refers to have a large number of people from different stakeholders participating in the process. However, the text below refers (if I understand it correctly) about the themes/topics/types of projects/initiatives to fund, as a congruence with ICANN’s mission is mentioned? Am I understanding this the wrong way?
The existing text on the letter says:
The CCWG supports the Board’s recommendation that a wide net should be cast and is happy to report that in addition to the members appointed by the CCWG Chartering Organizations, 45 participants and over 20 observers have signed up for this effort, many of which have no direct affiliation with ICANN SO/ACs. The CCWG recognizes that in addition to participation in the CCWG deliberations there is also the question of who will eventually be eligible to apply for the funds which is something that is expected to be addressed as part of its deliberations on the charter questions.
The change/addition proposed is below, and although I see the point, I don’t really see how to merge the 2 together as they about 2 different things.
We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net,
this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with
ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of
alignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note
that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be
detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the
Internet vs. to ICANN.
My suggestion will be to have 2 paragraphs, one about the wide net for stakeholders to engage, and a second one about looking at a wide range of topics/themes that might benefit the development of the Internet and the tension between that very important objective, and the need/desire to be aligned with ICANN’s mission.
Warm regards,
Sylvia
————
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs sylvia@apnic.net | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia
ISIF Asia http://www.isif.asia FB ISIF.Asia @ISIF_Asia
FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> DATE: Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 11:56 pm TO: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> CC: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
Elliot
Appreciate your suggestion. I believe yes, that is important to make it quite clear to avoid future embarrassment.
The text may be improved to make it quite clear when translated to other languages, but as a non-English native will not suggest any changes.
Best,
_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. _
_HAPPY 2017!_
FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> DATE: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM TO: E Noss <enoss@tucows.com> CC: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks,
Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 [1] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [2]. _
<CCWG AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Links: ------ [1] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [2] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... [3] 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 note that I took “wide net” to refer to both participants and applicants (I took a wide view of it!). if that is clearly the interpretation then I agree with your comment and suggestion. EN
On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:23 AM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
I have incorporated the small changes around typos to the text attached and added a couple of small edits (just for clarification), see attached.
I was trying to incorporate the text of the paragraph change proposed below that talks about the “wide net” but I was not able to do so, because on the letter, the “wide net” refers to have a large number of people from different stakeholders participating in the process. However, the text below refers (if I understand it correctly) about the themes/topics/types of projects/initiatives to fund, as a congruence with ICANN’s mission is mentioned? Am I understanding this the wrong way?
The existing text on the letter says:
The CCWG supports the Board’s recommendation that a wide net should be cast and is happy to report that in addition to the members appointed by the CCWG Chartering Organizations, 45 participants and over 20 observers have signed up for this effort, many of which have no direct affiliation with ICANN SO/ACs. The CCWG recognizes that in addition to participation in the CCWG deliberations there is also the question of who will eventually be eligible to apply for the funds which is something that is expected to be addressed as part of its deliberations on the charter questions.
The change/addition proposed is below, and although I see the point, I don’t really see how to merge the 2 together as they about 2 different things.
We note that despite ICANN and the CCWG's desire to cast a wide net, this may be constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of alignment with the mission and we acknowledge them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net and therefore could be detrimental to the potential benefits the funding could provide to the Internet vs. to ICANN.
My suggestion will be to have 2 paragraphs, one about the wide net for stakeholders to engage, and a second one about looking at a wide range of topics/themes that might benefit the development of the Internet and the tension between that very important objective, and the need/desire to be aligned with ICANN’s mission.
Warm regards,
Sylvia
————
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs sylvia@apnic.net | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia http://www.isif.asia FB ISIF.Asia @ISIF_Asia
From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 11:56 pm To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
Elliot Appreciate your suggestion. I believe yes, that is important to make it quite clear to avoid future embarrassment. The text may be improved to make it quite clear when translated to other languages, but as a non-English native will not suggest any changes. Best,
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. HAPPY 2017!
From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM To: E Noss <enoss@tucows.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
Elliot - I like this recommendation but let's hear what others are saying.
@Marika, thank you for the work, will review it asap.
Thanks, Erika
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com <mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> wrote: Hi Marika,
There is one concept that I think would be important to communicate. I would suggest it as an addendum to the comment dealing with a “wide net”. Something like:
* “We note that despite our desire to cast a wide net, this is constrained by a narrow interpretation of congruence with ICANN’s mission. We appreciate the legal and other implications of congruence with mission and expect to attorn to them, but we also note that this necessarily limits the size of the net”.
I add this because the board is, in my opinion, on both sides of this issue. The net can be cast as wide as possible only GIVEN congruence with mission. This trade off should be made explicit or the board will have their fig leaf and we will bear the criticism (board members on the list take note! :-)).
Thanks.
EN
On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest.
Thanks,
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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 18 April 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 AP - draft response to ICANN Board - updated 21 April 2017[2].docx>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (8)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
elliot noss -
Erika Mann -
Judith Hellerstein -
Marc Gauw -
Marika Konings -
Sylvia Cadena -
Vanda Scartezini