Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-Auction Proceeds meeting. Please take particular note of the action item related to the preliminary WG agreement proposed during today’s meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on Thursday 24 August at 2017 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>. 1. Roll call * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect * Please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and mute your mics when not speaking 2. Welcome / DOI 3. Recap CCWG approach for dealing with the charter questions, role of surveys and consensus calls * Lively exchanges on the list and questions in relation to the role of surveys and consensus calls * Staff trying to do its best to capture all the comments and input from calls and mailing list. Important for all to review and comment. * Surveys are intended to help inform deliberations and frame the discussions. Surveys are not consensus calls. * Mind maps are a translation of that input - help to identify what may be missing. * Leadership team discusses / reviews topics for surveys - way to obtain quick input to help inform discussions. * One page summaries on some key topics have been prepared which aim to capture the essence of the discussions to assist in moving forward the discussion and having all input in one place. * Leadership team is doing its best to keep track of earlier suggestions - but feel free to remind the CCWG of suggestions / ideas. * Many tracks / topics are currently open for discussion which makes it challenging for some to keep up. * CCWG reminded to review section 5 - rules of engagement of the charter which outlines decision making process (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw). Formal consensus call is conducted at the end of the process, but preliminary agreements may already been achieved at earlier stages of the process. Ideally full consensus is found, but charter also foresees option of minority positions. Action item #1: CCWG to review section 5 of the Charter on decision-making methodology (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw). 4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/) * Is there any input from new gTLD SubPro whether the auction mechanism may be used in the future? May not be likely as most desirable names have already been applied for, private auctions may take precedent and application fees may get adjusted noting experience from this round. Note there is also still substantial funding remaining in the ligitation fund. Would others be inclined to provide funding to the mechanism is created? Also depends on amount of funding that is spent per project as it may also influence the spending rate. * CCWG should not assume that more money is coming in - could be an option, but assumption is that funding is limited to what has been generated by new gTLD auction proceeds. As such, focus should be on funds that are currently available. * Permanent endowment could be considered incompatible with ICANN's charter and mission - have nothing to do with giving money away. Is a distraction from what ICANN's is supposed to be doing. * Consider adding this question to the list of questions for external experts - get an understanding of how they deal with this topic factoring in the amount of funds involved. * Possible preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). No objections expressed on the call for this preliminary WG agreement. Action item #2: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). 5. Review responses to survey related to charter question #10, Should ICANN the organization be permitted to apply for auction proceeds funds * See responses to survey circulated (https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-K3MK9MY5/). * Majority of respondents to the survey do not support allowing ICANN the organization to be permitted to apply for funds to replenish the ICANN reserve fund. * Would it be good for ICANN Org / Board to articulate why reserve fund is in current situation and what plans it has to replenish the reserve fund which may further assist in informing the CCWG deliberations in this regard? * Potential issues would need to be addressed on how to oversee / police allocation to reserve fund. * Is a potential new "Auction fund foundation" with a 501(c) status even allowed to donate to an Icann reserve fund? Doesn't sound like a 'charity'-donation. Funds could be allocated prior to creation of fund/foundation? * CCWG is only discussing whether we honour the request from the Board to allocate some of the funds to the reserve. CCWG can decide if we do and how much. The existance of the reserve and the target level is out of scope for the CCWG. * Regarding the ICANN Reserve Fund: ICANN has a reserve fund in place, set up in 2007. It is governed by the Investment Policy, approved by the Board. This policy says that the level of the Reserve Fund should be at least of 12 months of Operating Expenses, which is currently of approximately $140m. The Reserve Fund balance is currently of approximately $60m, after about $30m were taken to cover for the costs of the IANA Stewardship transition (CWG, CCWG, implementaion costs,...). * Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60. Action item #3: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting. Action item #4: Staff to document all surveys & results on wiki 6. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) a. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives Deferred to next meeting b. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’ Deferred to next meeting Action item #5: Staff to update the overview documents for objectives and open internet with input provided since circulation and put out to the list for further and input and discussion prior to the next meeting. c. Review examples Deferred to next meeting 7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update * CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance. 8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC) 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...>.
I have no objection to and fully support this preliminary WG agreement - *Action item #2*: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). Mei Lin Fung Organizer, People Centered Internet <http://www.peoplecentered.net/>, co-founded with Vint Cerf External advisor to the Stanford Center for Population Health Science <http://med.stanford.edu/phs.html> Member of the Global Future Council on Digital Economy and Society, <https://www.weforum.org/communities/the-future-of-the-digital-economy-and-so...> World Economic Forum Member of the Steering Committee, World Economic Forum, Internet for All <https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all> Vice Chair, Internet Inclusion, IEEE Internet Initiative <http://internetinitiative.ieee.org/> (e) mlf@alum.mit.edu ; meilin@peoplecentered.net (t) meilinfung On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-Auction Proceeds meeting. Please take particular note of the action item related to the preliminary WG agreement proposed during today’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on Thursday 24 August at 2017*
*These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>.*
*1. Roll call*
- Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect - Please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and mute your mics when not speaking
*2. Welcome / DOI*
*3. Recap CCWG approach for dealing with the charter questions, role of surveys and consensus calls*
- Lively exchanges on the list and questions in relation to the role of surveys and consensus calls - Staff trying to do its best to capture all the comments and input from calls and mailing list. Important for all to review and comment. - Surveys are intended to help inform deliberations and frame the discussions. Surveys are not consensus calls. - Mind maps are a translation of that input - help to identify what may be missing. - Leadership team discusses / reviews topics for surveys - way to obtain quick input to help inform discussions. - One page summaries on some key topics have been prepared which aim to capture the essence of the discussions to assist in moving forward the discussion and having all input in one place. - Leadership team is doing its best to keep track of earlier suggestions - but feel free to remind the CCWG of suggestions / ideas. - Many tracks / topics are currently open for discussion which makes it challenging for some to keep up. - CCWG reminded to review section 5 - rules of engagement of the charter which outlines decision making process (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw <https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw>). Formal consensus call is conducted at the end of the process, but preliminary agreements may already been achieved at earlier stages of the process. Ideally full consensus is found, but charter also foresees option of minority positions.
*Action item #1*: CCWG to review section 5 of the Charter on decision-making methodology (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw).
*4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/ <https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/>)*
- Is there any input from new gTLD SubPro whether the auction mechanism may be used in the future? May not be likely as most desirable names have already been applied for, private auctions may take precedent and application fees may get adjusted noting experience from this round. Note there is also still substantial funding remaining in the ligitation fund. Would others be inclined to provide funding to the mechanism is created? Also depends on amount of funding that is spent per project as it may also influence the spending rate. - CCWG should not assume that more money is coming in - could be an option, but assumption is that funding is limited to what has been generated by new gTLD auction proceeds. As such, focus should be on funds that are currently available. - Permanent endowment could be considered incompatible with ICANN's charter and mission - have nothing to do with giving money away. Is a distraction from what ICANN's is supposed to be doing. - Consider adding this question to the list of questions for external experts - get an understanding of how they deal with this topic factoring in the amount of funds involved. - Possible preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). No objections expressed on the call for this preliminary WG agreement.
*Action item #2*: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital).
*5. Review responses to survey related to charter question #10, Should ICANN the organization be permitted to apply for auction proceeds funds *
- See responses to survey circulated (https://www.surveymonkey.com/ results/SM-K3MK9MY5/). - Majority of respondents to the survey do not support allowing ICANN the organization to be permitted to apply for funds to replenish the ICANN reserve fund. - Would it be good for ICANN Org / Board to articulate why reserve fund is in current situation and what plans it has to replenish the reserve fund which may further assist in informing the CCWG deliberations in this regard? - Potential issues would need to be addressed on how to oversee / police allocation to reserve fund. - Is a potential new "Auction fund foundation" with a 501(c) status even allowed to donate to an Icann reserve fund? Doesn't sound like a 'charity'-donation. Funds could be allocated prior to creation of fund/foundation? - CCWG is only discussing whether we honour the request from the Board to allocate some of the funds to the reserve. CCWG can decide if we do and how much. The existance of the reserve and the target level is out of scope for the CCWG. - Regarding the ICANN Reserve Fund: ICANN has a reserve fund in place, set up in 2007. It is governed by the Investment Policy, approved by the Board. This policy says that the level of the Reserve Fund should be at least of 12 months of Operating Expenses, which is currently of approximately $140m. The Reserve Fund balance is currently of approximately $60m, after about $30m were taken to cover for the costs of the IANA Stewardship transition (CWG, CCWG, implementaion costs,...). - Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60.
*Action item #3*: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting.
*Action item #4*: Staff to document all surveys & results on wiki
6. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached)
a. Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives
Deferred to next meeting
b. Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’
Deferred to next meeting
*Action item #5*: Staff to update the overview documents for objectives and open internet with input provided since circulation and put out to the list for further and input and discussion prior to the next meeting.
c. Review examples
Deferred to next meeting
7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update
- CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance.
8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC)
*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
Hello Marika, Thanks for sending this in and apologies for missing the call. A few comments Inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 24, 2017 4:41 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: *Action item #2*: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). SO: +1 *5. *,...). - Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60. SO: Am not sure how we intend to determine this change in opinion, is it by the input from ICANN Org/Board? *Action item #3*: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting. SO: Personally I am not sure we should be discussing ICANN reserve in this manner. Our decision IMO should not be about trying to justify the need to fund the reserve based on its "current situation". It should rather be on the basis of whether the auction funds should be available for reserve and if yes how? (In terms of process and amount). We have noted significant response of a "No" to the first question which then seem to make the follow-up question unnecessary. c. Review examples Deferred to next meeting 7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update - CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance. SO: Ack! 8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC) SO: If there is a calendar list, kindly add my email to it. Even if I don't get to attend due to one reason or the other, it does serve as reminder for me. Regards *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
Dear Seun, please see my comments below, following your comment about the reserve fund. Best, Erika On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Marika,
Thanks for sending this in and apologies for missing the call. A few comments Inline:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 24, 2017 4:41 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
*Action item #2*: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital).
SO: +1
*5. *,...).
- Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60.
SO: Am not sure how we intend to determine this change in opinion, is it by the input from ICANN Org/Board?
*Action item #3*: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting.
SO: Personally I am not sure we should be discussing ICANN reserve in this manner. Our decision IMO should not be about trying to justify the need to fund the reserve based on its "current situation". It should rather be on the basis of whether the auction funds should be available for reserve and if yes how? (In terms of process and amount). We have noted significant response of a "No" to the first question which then seem to make the follow-up question unnecessary.
*EM = We had a very long discussion about this topic and it became clear during this debate that some members are willing to consider to support the reserve fund with a well defined amount/percentage under certain conditions. To be able to consider such kind of approach, we need more information from the Board/Org to be able to justify such a step. It's absolutely clear that we can't take such a step lightly and that we will need to debate this again once we have received more information. The original responses, with a clear indication for a 'No' remain valid until there is a strong support for a different approach. Let me assure you that there is no hidden agenda and we're not looking for a way to justify to replenish the reserve fund but we have missing pieces of important information. I hope my explanation helps to ease your concerns. *
c. Review examples
Deferred to next meeting
7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update
- CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance.
SO: Ack!
8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC)
SO: If there is a calendar list, kindly add my email to it. Even if I don't get to attend due to one reason or the other, it does serve as reminder for me.
Regards
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Thanks Erika, your response was helpful. FWIW, I certainly am not implying any hidden agenda....not at the moment. :-) Cheers! Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 24, 2017 8:26 PM, "Erika Mann" <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Seun, please see my comments below, following your comment about the reserve fund. Best, Erika
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Marika,
Thanks for sending this in and apologies for missing the call. A few comments Inline:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 24, 2017 4:41 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
*Action item #2*: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital).
SO: +1
*5. *,...).
- Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60.
SO: Am not sure how we intend to determine this change in opinion, is it by the input from ICANN Org/Board?
*Action item #3*: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting.
SO: Personally I am not sure we should be discussing ICANN reserve in this manner. Our decision IMO should not be about trying to justify the need to fund the reserve based on its "current situation". It should rather be on the basis of whether the auction funds should be available for reserve and if yes how? (In terms of process and amount). We have noted significant response of a "No" to the first question which then seem to make the follow-up question unnecessary.
*EM = We had a very long discussion about this topic and it became clear during this debate that some members are willing to consider to support the reserve fund with a well defined amount/percentage under certain conditions. To be able to consider such kind of approach, we need more information from the Board/Org to be able to justify such a step. It's absolutely clear that we can't take such a step lightly and that we will need to debate this again once we have received more information. The original responses, with a clear indication for a 'No' remain valid until there is a strong support for a different approach. Let me assure you that there is no hidden agenda and we're not looking for a way to justify to replenish the reserve fund but we have missing pieces of important information. I hope my explanation helps to ease your concerns. *
c. Review examples
Deferred to next meeting
7. ICANN60 meeting planning – update
- CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance.
SO: Ack!
8. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC)
SO: If there is a calendar list, kindly add my email to it. Even if I don't get to attend due to one reason or the other, it does serve as reminder for me.
Regards
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (4)
-
Erika Mann -
Marika Konings -
Mei Lin Fung -
Seun Ojedeji