agree with Maureen and Sam. cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

Well, Elliot I believe we will come to the conclusion during our next call that we will recommend a second public comment period, this would allow a broader part of the community to participate. But we can’t discuss these topics forever. There comes a point where we have to jump and have to have the trust that things will get corrected if they’re not working out as planned. We have included various review cycles that would allow such a correction. Erika Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 29, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:

I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I respect others opinions and efforts.

If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small group that is still playing along.

EN

...

On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

agree with Maureen and Sam. cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

“Playing along” was not meant in a derogatory way. In fact it was intended as a positive. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I should more accurately have said “still participating”. The people who join and lurk are many. Those who stick it out and work are few. That speaks positively of the few not the many. Hope that clarifies. Iirc this started with something like 60+ people. We are probably 20% of that active at this point. EN

On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Elliot, can you clarify what you mean by "playing along".

I am a little challenged by that comment, given the amount of time that I devote to this CCWG.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:08 AM To: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I respect others opinions and efforts.

If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small group that is still playing along.

EN

...

On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

agree with Maureen and Sam. cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann....>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

I hope this is not an imposition. We have segued into a discussion of participation and I would like to add a comment or two. The first is that within its work multistakeholder ICANN starts with an endemic imbalance. Those stakeholder groups with an economic self-interest in issues are always there, and usually paid to be there. GAC, with its political interests, operates under constraints that they are partially uncomfortable with. GAC both partially adjusts and seeks other forms of leverage, within ICANN’s remit, with efforts at leverage from elsewhere. The participation of the ngo and civil society sector suffers from the fact that it does not represent sector, instead it's self-selected members participate */in the interests of/* the issues important to that sector. The result is a three-legged working process and policy stool where the leg representing economic self-interest (contract and non-contracted business parties) is strong, determined and well resourced. The GAC leg is well resourced but constrained by GAC’s advisory role. The public interest leg (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) is constrained by its volunteer labor, lack of resources, and -in some sense- while engagement is well-meaning, has no direct accountability to those whose interests it represents. To the credit of all, much of the working group process is an effort to reach clarity around a consensus outcome. Much of what we put on the table gets a fair hearing prior to acceptance or rejection. This labor-intensive process gives favorable weight to the business sector, with its paid engagement, and less weight to ngo/civil society sector inputs that depends on volunteer labor. There is no clear or easy way to address this imbalance, one which ICANN org downplays to bolster its multistakeholder image. The differential resource bases and -at best- well meaning efforts as representation of public interest will continue to complicate engagement in the working group process. In my view, the likely long run outcome will be more of Internet governance policy making taking place elsewhere, and a tighter ring fence around what is understood as the ICANN remit. Sam L On 8/29/2019 10:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

Yes, Elliot, and I do appreciate your response and your clarification.

I learned a long time ago to watch the attendance at all meetings, but also to look at who posts to see who may be very actively engaged, but did a quick analysis of the attendance rates of each of the members, and also the participants, and I also looked at who posts. That took a lot of time but I thought it worthwhile, as my training in Organizational Development taught me to loo for the obvious and the non obvious.

Fortunately, the attendance records help us to document who is engaging. As do the posting records, which show the active engagement of several of the members and also some participants.

I think there are multiple indicators of commitment and interest: e.g. people don't show up on calls, due to travel or conflicts with other meetings, *but *they read and post comments, which shows their active engagement. e.g. people actively fill in the doodle polls so that a meeting with the most attendance can be selected e.g. people who can't attend send regrets, so that it is clear they are participating, even if not able to attend a particular meeting.

We have been competing with the EPDP and I am not being critical, just making an observation but for many, it has sort of sucked all the air out of the room of participation and personally, I have to respect that, while also striving to make sure that the community has the participation that it expected.  Certainly, we have had great Board liaison, great staff support, dedicated co chairs, and a core group of participants.

But, in some ways, this is why I want a second public comment period, although I'd prefer a 30 day period for public comments.

Again, thanks for your reponse.

Marilyn

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:27 AM *To:* Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc:* CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal “Playing along” was not meant in a derogatory way. In fact it was intended as a positive. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I should more accurately have said “still participating”. The people who join and lurk are many. Those who stick it out and work are few. That speaks positively of the few not the many. Hope that clarifies.

Iirc this started with something like 60+ people. We are probably 20% of that active at this point.

EN

...

On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Elliot, can you clarify what you mean by "playing along".

I am a little challenged by that comment, given the amount of time that I devote to this CCWG.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com <mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> *Sent:*Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:08 AM *To:*CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I respect others opinions and efforts.

If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small group that is still playing along.

EN

...

On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

agree with Maureen and Sam. cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

Judith, */Mea culpa/.* I did fail to give At Large its well deserved and proper due. It was an omission due to haste. /*Mea Culpa*/. I should stress that the overall engagement of those representing the Public Interest is impressive given the constraints they operate under. Sam L. On 8/29/2019 1:00 PM, Judith Hellerstein wrote:

HI Sam,

Sorry to wade in to this discussion which is not really on target but felt that I needed to correct some assumptions that Sam has made. Sam LanFranco, I respect your time and contributions, but in your description you left out At Large, we are representing the Public Interest which you have neglected to mention. Our volunteers (Members and Participants within CCWG-Auction Proceeds) spend countless hours working on these issues and get no reimbursement of compensation for our times spent, but if you look at the attendance and contribution measures we are always there at these meetings but the same could not be said for NCSG contingency. Our volunteers are deeply committed to these issues and many of them make time to come to these meetings, taking time out of their work day, waking up very early in the morning or staying up very late at night, so we beg to differ on your slight. We are not paid by our jobs for any of the countless hours we put in representing the public interest, but many of us do this because we are so passionate about it

While many of us in At Large agree with your statement below, we still manage to find the time to show up and contribute.

"This labor-intensive process gives favorable weight to the business sector, with its paid engagement, and less weight to ngo/civil society sector inputs that depends on volunteer labor. There is no clear or easy way to address this imbalance, one which ICANN org downplays to bolster its multistakeholder image. The differential resource bases and -at best- well meaning efforts as representation of public interest will continue to complicate engagement in the working group process."

Best,

Judith

Speaking for myself

_________________________________________________________________________ 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 8/29/2019 12:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

...

I hope this is not an imposition. We have segued into a discussion of participation and I would like to add a comment or two. The first is that within its work multistakeholder ICANN starts with an endemic imbalance. Those stakeholder groups with an economic self-interest in issues are always there, and usually paid to be there. GAC, with its political interests, operates under constraints that they are partially uncomfortable with. GAC both partially adjusts and seeks other forms of leverage, within ICANN’s remit, with efforts at leverage from elsewhere. The participation of the ngo and civil society sector suffers from the fact that it does not represent sector, instead it's self-selected members participate */in the interests of/* the issues important to that sector.

The result is a three-legged working process and policy stool where the leg representing economic self-interest (contract and non-contracted business parties) is strong, determined and well resourced. The GAC leg is well resourced but constrained by GAC’s advisory role. The public interest leg (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) is constrained by its volunteer labor, lack of resources, and -in some sense- while engagement is well-meaning, has no direct accountability to those whose interests it represents.

To the credit of all, much of the working group process is an effort to reach clarity around a consensus outcome. Much of what we put on the table gets a fair hearing prior to acceptance or rejection. This labor-intensive process gives favorable weight to the business sector, with its paid engagement, and less weight to ngo/civil society sector inputs that depends on volunteer labor. There is no clear or easy way to address this imbalance, one which ICANN org downplays to bolster its multistakeholder image. The differential resource bases and -at best- well meaning efforts as representation of public interest will continue to complicate engagement in the working group process.

In my view, the likely long run outcome will be more of Internet governance policy making taking place elsewhere, and a tighter ring fence around what is understood as the ICANN remit.

Sam L

On 8/29/2019 10:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

...

Yes, Elliot, and I do appreciate your response and your clarification.

I learned a long time ago to watch the attendance at all meetings, but also to look at who posts to see who may be very actively engaged, but did a quick analysis of the attendance rates of each of the members, and also the participants, and I also looked at who posts. That took a lot of time but I thought it worthwhile, as my training in Organizational Development taught me to loo for the obvious and the non obvious.

Fortunately, the attendance records help us to document who is engaging. As do the posting records, which show the active engagement of several of the members and also some participants.

I think there are multiple indicators of commitment and interest: e.g. people don't show up on calls, due to travel or conflicts with other meetings, *but *they read and post comments, which shows their active engagement. e.g. people actively fill in the doodle polls so that a meeting with the most attendance can be selected e.g. people who can't attend send regrets, so that it is clear they are participating, even if not able to attend a particular meeting.

We have been competing with the EPDP and I am not being critical, just making an observation but for many, it has sort of sucked all the air out of the room of participation and personally, I have to respect that, while also striving to make sure that the community has the participation that it expected.  Certainly, we have had great Board liaison, great staff support, dedicated co chairs, and a core group of participants.

But, in some ways, this is why I want a second public comment period, although I'd prefer a 30 day period for public comments.

Again, thanks for your reponse.

Marilyn

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:27 AM *To:* Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc:* CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal “Playing along” was not meant in a derogatory way. In fact it was intended as a positive. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I should more accurately have said “still participating”. The people who join and lurk are many. Those who stick it out and work are few. That speaks positively of the few not the many. Hope that clarifies.

Iirc this started with something like 60+ people. We are probably 20% of that active at this point.

EN

...

On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Elliot, can you clarify what you mean by "playing along".

I am a little challenged by that comment, given the amount of time that I devote to this CCWG.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com <mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> *Sent:*Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:08 AM *To:*CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I respect others opinions and efforts.

If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small group that is still playing along.

EN

...

On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

agree with Maureen and Sam. cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam@lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

I hope we can stop commenting on each group's attendance and participation on the list -- as I was trying to note, they can be different, as contributing is also one of our responsibilities. So, I apologize if I was responsible for kicking off the discussion. We are all in this together, and I am a believer that people do the best they can. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:19 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal On 29-08-19 19:00, Judith Hellerstein wrote:

we are always there at these meetings but the same could not be said for NCSG contingency.

I suggest you verify your facts by checking the attendance records. Some of us believe in the old Finnish adage "whatever you say better be worth more than he silence you break". Clearly some others don't. Julf _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce4594348467b4f65dba908d72d121609%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637027428010291821&sdata=yXr2TaJs5yPijGLGy0bp5zKdRQmKAYY93FUel7x1yAI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce4594348467b4f65dba908d72d121609%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637027428010291821&sdata=iEXUn21BtBWGjZsqaB1k9LTYpPNZqvg2s92nldPiZZk%3D&reserved=0) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce4594348467b4f65dba908d72d121609%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637027428010291821&sdata=K3ouAujbmVUZGAnmzXaYrUCcpDLgzIoTkeRpLsHKxsM%3D&reserved=0). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On 30-08-19 13:51, Marilyn Cade wrote:

I hope we can stop commenting on each group's attendance and participation on the list

Yes, please!

We are all in this together, and I am a believer that people do the best they can.  

Indeed! Julf

Hi Maureen Good addition. I agree Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein

On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps an "overall assessment of approved projects, etc"?... because as is, it still sounds as if it does the assessment.

To me anyway 🙂

...

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 10:38 AM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Attached is the final version. In response to Becky's comment, I have added the word "cumulative" in 3rd APPRP bullet. It now reads:

...

The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an cumulative assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP).

This hopefully makes it clear that the APPRP is not actually assessing project success but is looking at the cumulative or average success of the entire project portfolio.

Alan

At 26/08/2019 05:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

I'll do a revision once a few more comments come it, but will make it VERY clear that the APPRP will not evaluate specific projects. As an aside, if the APPRP feels that the Mechanism is not doing proper project result evaluation, that would be a dandy reason to suggest an APPAP.

Alan

At 26/08/2019 05:29 PM, Becky Burr wrote:

...

I think it is fine for APPRP to use the individual assessments provided by experts to measure the overall success of the program, but very concerned about any evaluation of individual projects by the APPRP. I am concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

Becky’s comments touch on an area that may need better clarity. This is the start of a new undertaking and the annual review wording might be cast slightly differently. Something like:

* The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review, starting at the end of year 2. The first annual review will focus on Mechanism development and an assessment of approved projects relative to auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will include an assessment of funded projects, based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP.

* The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in terms of its operational performance and the auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate individual projects beyond what is provided in the assessments provided to the APPRP. Casting the wording something like this (a) distinguishes between the initial assessment and subsequent assessments, and (b) limits individual project assessment to evidence “provided to the APPRP†. That does leave open the question of who provides that evidence. I assume that is the project recipient’s own self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible for assessing the quality of the reporting. Sam L On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: I am having a little trouble reconciling this:

* The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). with this:

* For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism and will not evaluate the success of individual funded projects, although the APPRP may take into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"?

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.