my apologies as well, I have a conflict that day. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-11-14 13:08, Olga Cavalli wrote:

Dear all,

I will be in a plane at the time of the call so please note my apologies.

Will follow up with recordings

Best Olga

2017-11-14 14:03 GMT-03:00 Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing.

Thanks,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC*

1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: 1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps 4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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-efforts.htm#newcomers>/. /

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Thanks do find inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 15, 2017 2:22 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. SO: Thanks for this. So basically experts(both external and internal) are volunteers as well. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. SO: Okay the meeting for 16 seem critical then and I hope for good deliberation on that. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. SO: Okay, I this is clearer now. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. SO: If we can get a trend on which option is getting more traction so that helps reduce the numbers from current 4 to say 2. Then we focus on those 2.

From what I see it seem hybrid and internal are the 2 main options currently in significant competition. So I will suggest we streamline and just focus on those 2 options.

I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. SO: By stage 2, I assume you mean phase 2 in the workplan and approach document. On charter question 7 and 10, I thought we were done with those Items. As I recall we looked at it during the face 2 face and just minor edits were suggested. Otherwise is there any significant action that is still required? Thanks for all the work. Regards Best regards, Marika *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika *Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC* 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: 1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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* [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=vepTnIDWQE-1_wU1ZNVYdsNAc6cx7b-vFjWlkUlclT8&s=X3l3Apo_nTVALzVbUsINnj4dLIV2o2MTrJKgZrode0I&e=>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> *. * _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0>

Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions:

I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how.

I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of.

I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date.

In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would

suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects,

we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-)

------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM *To:* Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants.

With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following.

The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important.

If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved.

Best regards,

Marika

*From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Hello Marika,

Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG?

To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that.

I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey)

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing.

Thanks,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC*

1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2:

1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps

1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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* [learn.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3D7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM%26m%3DvepTnIDWQE-1_wU1ZNVYdsNAc6cx7b-vFjWlkUlclT8%26s%3DX3l3Apo_nTVALzVbUsINnj4dLIV2o2MTrJKgZrode0I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=5q%2BHPZ6kD5zcwPeb6%2FFjb5hRE0BiV5IJjIgteBtKWBg%3D&reserved=0>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> *. *

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

I am just looking into a number of different donor organizations -- and for instance, some have board members that are representative of multiple regions, and some have staff that have experience in working in different countries. Sometimes a Foundation is based in a country where the primary donor base is located -- e.g. I have found a few that are based in their country of origin in Europe, but their focus is funding development in developing countries. That happens also for the US based Foundations, if the primary contributor (s) are homed in that country, and they are taking advantage of the legal and accountability environment. That to me is not the question we should be asking: we should be asking what can we learn from you and your approach to managing the solicitation of applications, and the review process; the award process, and the monitoring and evaluation process, including required reports on results, transparency, criteria for Board members, staff members, etc. ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:38 PM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC +1 Vanda On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0>

i think we can address that, Maureen, in criteria for the Board for the new foundation, which is what I favor as the mechanism. We could establish a criteria of at least two from regions, and also from sub regions on the board. I am going to go for more than one person on the board to note that we need many from the sub regions and regions. For North America, for instance, I am not the person, but someone from the indigenous peoples could be. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:13 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Vanda Scartezini; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC But Marilyn, can I just add that you would be hard pressed to find a representative from from one of the under-served regions that Vanda and I are focusing on. within these large organisations, and this is our point. We need to be able to ensure that there will be someone on this Board who will understand the needs and circumstances of our underserved regions. In the past I have found it difficult to even access an application form for these larger foundations, especially those that are US-based because most of us in the Pacific for example, don't have any connection with the US, so we don't get any priority. It would be imperative that our processes are inclusive and user-friendly so that all levels of society and all types of communities can be benefit from these funds, and at the same time increase the outreach of ICANN into these regions. . Therefore in the interests of all, it is important for us to at least be able to ask Vanda's question. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I am just looking into a number of different donor organizations -- and for instance, some have board members that are representative of multiple regions, and some have staff that have experience in working in different countries. Sometimes a Foundation is based in a country where the primary donor base is located -- e.g. I have found a few that are based in their country of origin in Europe, but their focus is funding development in developing countries. That happens also for the US based Foundations, if the primary contributor (s) are homed in that country, and they are taking advantage of the legal and accountability environment. That to me is not the question we should be asking: we should be asking what can we learn from you and your approach to managing the solicitation of applications, and the review process; the award process, and the monitoring and evaluation process, including required reports on results, transparency, criteria for Board members, staff members, etc. ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:38 PM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC +1 Vanda On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0>

Again, that is a conversation that might happen if the group decides to support as a mechanism the creation of a new foundation, but if the groups sets on a different mechanism, then we do not need to discuss this issue of board representation. If we set on other mechanism, we might focus on how make sure the selection and allocation balance merit, geographical distribution, representation of developing economies, benefit, etc. without talking about board representation… Hope we can eat this elephant, one bite at the time. ———— Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 8:12 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC i think we can address that, Maureen, in criteria for the Board for the new foundation, which is what I favor as the mechanism. We could establish a criteria of at least two from regions, and also from sub regions on the board. I am going to go for more than one person on the board to note that we need many from the sub regions and regions. For North America, for instance, I am not the person, but someone from the indigenous peoples could be. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:13 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Vanda Scartezini; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC But Marilyn, can I just add that you would be hard pressed to find a representative from from one of the under-served regions that Vanda and I are focusing on. within these large organisations, and this is our point. We need to be able to ensure that there will be someone on this Board who will understand the needs and circumstances of our underserved regions. In the past I have found it difficult to even access an application form for these larger foundations, especially those that are US-based because most of us in the Pacific for example, don't have any connection with the US, so we don't get any priority. It would be imperative that our processes are inclusive and user-friendly so that all levels of society and all types of communities can be benefit from these funds, and at the same time increase the outreach of ICANN into these regions. . Therefore in the interests of all, it is important for us to at least be able to ask Vanda's question. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I am just looking into a number of different donor organizations -- and for instance, some have board members that are representative of multiple regions, and some have staff that have experience in working in different countries. Sometimes a Foundation is based in a country where the primary donor base is located -- e.g. I have found a few that are based in their country of origin in Europe, but their focus is funding development in developing countries. That happens also for the US based Foundations, if the primary contributor (s) are homed in that country, and they are taking advantage of the legal and accountability environment. That to me is not the question we should be asking: we should be asking what can we learn from you and your approach to managing the solicitation of applications, and the review process; the award process, and the monitoring and evaluation process, including required reports on results, transparency, criteria for Board members, staff members, etc. ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:38 PM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC +1 Vanda On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: a. Review of updated examples document (see attached) b. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) c. Discuss next steps 4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Cd436e3ed48c94e34ef0608d52c490567%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463614479585359&sdata=fjMn0qJxhruIoqnkTgVuFa00TGuUPcZZAjxLojEtqow%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7Ca7523d4d6a2648f7729a08d52c608496%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463715401073596&sdata=h%2BUOznR9R%2FAA5JgfE0FzwUdSlhS%2F7I7WN4u3Lsg2ipk%3D&reserved=0>

Hi everyone.. I think the discussion expanded from whether or not we should include Vanda's question... M On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

I agree. I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves. It is not yet clear we will have an organization with a board, and even if we do, it is not clear that the board needs the background to be making project decisions or how to advertise the program(s). An aircraft company board does not necessarily need to be composed of aeronautical engineers.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On November 16, 2017 12:09:22 AM EST, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:

...

Again, that is a conversation that might happen if the group decides to support as a mechanism the creation of a new foundation, but if the groups sets on a different mechanism, then we do not need to discuss this issue of board representation.

If we set on other mechanism, we might focus on how make sure the selection and allocation balance merit, geographical distribution, representation of developing economies, benefit, etc. without talking about board representation…

Hope we can eat this elephant, one bite at the time.

————

Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation

*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 8:12 am *To: *Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

i think we can address that, Maureen, in criteria for the Board for the new foundation, which is what I favor as the mechanism.

We could establish a criteria of at least two from regions, and also from sub regions on the board.

I am going to go for more than one person on the board to note that we need many from the sub regions and regions.

For North America, for instance, I am not the person, but someone from the indigenous peoples could be.

Marilyn

------------------------------

*From:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:13 PM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Vanda Scartezini; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

But Marilyn, can I just add that you would be hard pressed to find a representative from from one of the under-served regions that Vanda and I are focusing on. within these large organisations, and this is our point.

We need to be able to ensure that there will be someone on this Board who will understand the needs and circumstances of our underserved regions.

In the past I have found it difficult to even access an application form for these larger foundations, especially those that are US-based because most of us in the Pacific for example, don't have any connection with the US, so we don't get any priority. It would be imperative that our processes are inclusive and user-friendly so that all levels of society and all types of communities can be benefit from these funds, and at the same time increase the outreach of ICANN into these regions. .

Therefore in the interests of all, it is important for us to at least be able to ask Vanda's question.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am just looking into a number of different donor organizations -- and for instance, some have board members that are representative of

multiple regions, and some have staff that have experience in working in different countries. Sometimes a Foundation is based in a country where the primary donor base is located -- e.g. I have found a few that are based in their country of origin in Europe, but their focus is funding development in developing countries. That happens also for the US based Foundations, if the primary contributor (s) are homed in that country, and they are taking advantage of the legal and accountability environment.

That to me is not the question we should be asking: we should be asking what can we learn from you and your approach to managing the solicitation of applications, and the review process; the award process, and the monitoring and evaluation process, including required reports on results, transparency, criteria for Board members, staff members, etc.

------------------------------

*From:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:38 PM *To:* Vanda Scartezini *Cc:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

+1 Vanda

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:

I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects?

Vanda Scartezini

Sent from my iPhone

Sorry for typos

On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large

overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community.

Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created.

We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each

invited.

Marilyn

------------------------------

*From:* Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Marilyn -

we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one?

I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be.

Thanks for all the effort,

Erika

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions:

I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how.

I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of.

I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date.

In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would

suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects,

we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-)

------------------------------

*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM *To:* Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants.

With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following.

The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important.

If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved.

Best regards,

Marika

*From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Hello Marika,

Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG?

To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that.

I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey)

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing.

Thanks,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC*

1. Roll Call

2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates

3. Completing stage 2:

a. Review of updated examples document (see attached)

b. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting)

c. Discuss next steps

4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached)

5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached)

6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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* [learn.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3D7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM%26m%3DvepTnIDWQE-1_wU1ZNVYdsNAc6cx7b-vFjWlkUlclT8%26s%3DX3l3Apo_nTVALzVbUsINnj4dLIV2o2MTrJKgZrode0I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=5q%2BHPZ6kD5zcwPeb6%2FFjb5hRE0BiV5IJjIgteBtKWBg%3D&reserved=0>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> *. *

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Very pertinent point, +1.

On 15 Nov 2017, at 20:37, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:

I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects?

Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos

On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:

...

I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large

overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community.

Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created.

We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each

invited.

Marilyn

From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Marilyn -

we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one?

I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be.

Thanks for all the effort, Erika

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions:

I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how.

I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of.

I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date.

In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would

suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects,

we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-)

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants.

With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following.

The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important.

If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Hello Marika,

Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG?

To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that.

I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey)

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing.

Thanks,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC

Roll Call Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates Completing stage 2: Review of updated examples document (see attached) Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) Discuss next steps Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>.

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

+1 Banda, A real concern on this regards, American based organizations mechanism set-ups that they do follow the jurisdiction of the USA. Even ICANN itself does comply to such restrictions. A question to the expert how to make sure that American based organizations will not be constraint the funding projects in countries that are sanctioned by America. Such as Sudan and others? Because in the criteria of funding mechanisms in the document we do have "Fund allocation • Ensure that applications can be received and considered from different communities and parts of the world" Thank you Nadira AL-Araj On Nov 15, 2017 21:37, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote: I would like to add to Marilyn’s concerns, that I agree, a question to someone to answer: Which are the requisites for any American Foundation ( or other From any developed country) to apply resources in developing countries projects? Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 15 Nov 2017, at 17:16, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: I understand,Erika, however, Gates may be too big to be considered representative. Very large donor organizations have very large overhead, for instance, and I know that will be a strong concern to this community. Smaller donor organizations often have less overhead, and can be closer to the purpose for which a fund is created. We can develop a set of standard questions and do interviews that not everyone can attend, but we can get a set of questions that we ask of each invited. Marilyn ------------------------------ *From:* Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:50 AM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Marika Konings; Seun Ojedeji; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Marilyn - we have the Gates Foundation on our list and I checked with them if they're willing to do this. Not sure if we need therefore another big one? I agree with you, learning is always good but we need to keep in mind that we need to be able to handle these additional conference calls. Let's discuss tomorrow how many calls we want to have with different experts and how diverse we want these calls with different fund/foundation environments to be. Thanks for all the effort, Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM *To:* Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika *Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC* 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: 1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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* [learn.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3D7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM%26m%3DvepTnIDWQE-1_wU1ZNVYdsNAc6cx7b-vFjWlkUlclT8%26s%3DX3l3Apo_nTVALzVbUsINnj4dLIV2o2MTrJKgZrode0I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=5q%2BHPZ6kD5zcwPeb6%2FFjb5hRE0BiV5IJjIgteBtKWBg%3D&reserved=0>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer pages*[gnso.icann.org] <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> *. * _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ 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

FWIW I like to add my +1 to this comment from Sylvia. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 16, 2017 5:46 AM, "Sylvia Cadena" <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:

Hi everyone,

Will do my best to attend the meeting tonight.

Just in case I cannot make it, I would like to express my concern about mixing up too many things at the same time, which makes it very difficult for the discussions to move forward.

I really hope that we can finalize the preamble, and get some clarity on the mechanism to be chosen, so that the list of experts reflects that mechanism (no need to contact an advisor about how to open a new foundation if the mechanism selected is to partner with existing foundations for example).

Regards,

Sylvia

————

Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

That is correct Sean, but we are tasked to provide recommendations about how the selected mechanism will in fact do the work. So, it is not enough to say we want to use A, B or C but to provide recommendations or at least a list of issues the selected mechanism administrator will have to take into account. The way I see it is like coming up with a comprehensive list of Terms of Reference for the administrator of the mechanism (whatever that is) to define the whole framework. ———— Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 3:42 pm To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello, As I understand it, our job is mainly to recommend mechanisms to manage funds, we are not the ones to review applications, neither are we to approve funding. This is why I feel continuously interviewing funding/foundation organisation at this stage sounds to me like putting the chart before the horse. I personally feel we need to agree on an overall mechanism to use first at a high level, it is at that time we can then look into how to make that mechanism work. I don't know what else we will want to hear from external foundations about the 4 options we currently have[1] on the table as I don't think they can choose one for us, we have to do that ourselves. However I believe they can contribute significantly to helping us flesh out the details that will make the option we choose work well. Overall, I am open to us learning as much as possible, but I think we should not loose sight on what we need to do as a task. I will also like to request that the Chair let us know by mail whenever engagement of external experts is no longer voluntary. Regards 1. Infact one may say external foundation organisation may be "somewhat" conflicted in that because one or 2 if the options apply to them. Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 15, 2017 3:44 PM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Marika,with apologies for delayed suggestions: I tried to add in a couple of ideas of experts, and found I can't figure out how. I nominate Alliance for Affordable Internet [A4AI]; Mastercard Foundation; and IEEE Foundation for additional conversations. I do note that we are not including yet some of the major funders, such as Microsoft, MasterCard Foundation, IBM, and perhaps a few more that I am not well aware of. I know that I have only been a participant for the last 6 meetings, and regret that I missed some earlier discussions so apologize to be bringing in new thoughts at this late date. In my view, learning about how funds are dispersed, and evaluated should be our priority, not picking a particular model. So, I would suggest that even if in the future, some of these groups we are learning from might apply for Auction fund supported projects, we need not limit our learning. Also, we must not limit our learning to only those who are affiliated with some of us, and I say that gently, but sometimes the road ahead is illuminated by a new lamp. :-) ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:22 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Seun, the experts that have been identified by the CCWG to date can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FDAnfAw&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=H65gTN6C1y8Fp%2BfHRU9zJYBy97ap504BGM781oo1FL4%3D&reserved=0>. This also includes an overview of the expertise present amongst CCWG members and participants. With regards to next milestone, please review the updated timeline that was circulated with the agenda. This document also includes the approach for dealing with the charter questions that the CCWG is following. The survey was intended to see whether a clear preference existed amongst the CCWG members and participants for a certain mechanism. However, as there does not seem to be a clear preference, the CCWG will need to start digging deeper in order to eventually make a determination about the preferred mechanism. This was the objective of the exercise in Abu Dhabi: identify overarching criteria that are expected to determine what mechanism is preferred as well as identify what further information is needed with regards to the different mechanisms to be able to value these criteria. For example, several commenters noted that cost is an important factor in determining which mechanism is preferable, but at this stage, the CCWG has very little insight into what the expected cost (e.g. set-up, running) of each mechanism may be. Experts, who have been involved in setting up similar mechanisms may be in a position to provide guidance to the CCWG in this regard. This is of course only one factor that has been identified as important. If there are suggestions for how to move forward quicker on making this determination or other parts of the work that can be done in parallel (the leadership may have some suggestions during tomorrow’s meeting), these should be shared so that these can be part of the conversation concerning the work plan. I do note however that there are still some outstanding items from stage 2 that need to be completed and are awaiting CCWG input so moving faster will only be possible with the assistance of everyone involved. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 02:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hello Marika, Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG? To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that. I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: a. Review of updated examples document (see attached) b. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) c. Discuss next steps 4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C276f224728b241b2ed5c08d52c2bee57%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636463489544503941&sdata=halopt%2FxAn3p9KWzGVHIxr%2FN83IvDc%2FhXosSQz8XP7A%3D&reserved=0>

Dear Seun - We will discuss the Work Plan and related time options tomorrow. In case you can't join us, you will receive a summary about what we will discuss in the report that Marika or someone else will send afterward. Concerning the experts: we will have expert from the outside, experts that are experienced in their fields. I'm not expecting that they will be paid. We are envisaging conference calls with them and those that I recommended will not charge anything. I hope this helps! Erika On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Marika,

Please note a tentative apology. That said, could you remind me again who the experts are, are those ICANN staff if not are they paid category of people within this CCWG?

To the Chairs, I raised this during the face 2 face and I think I should ask again here; can we have an idea of what the next milestone of the group is supposed to be and in what timeline are we supposed to achieve that.

I am saying this because I feel we are getting too bugged down with documentations that seems repeatitive to me. We earlier did a survey about the options, then we put that on pause and did the session at AbuDhabi which produced yet another documentation with new set of questions (which are similar to what was already answered through the previous survey)

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Nov 14, 2017 6:03 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing.

Thanks,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC*

1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: 1. Review of updated examples document (see attached) 2. Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) 3. Discuss next steps 4. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 5. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Dear Nadira, May I kindly invite you to update the document located here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g-5F3kS0JUSSC-5FtSk_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=qwZCwISE3laKYgpIyfvjeJl0hUq_DJaG7CDksncng70&s=q_3gA1QvHXGR4xeVn9ZnNO1DSdGLzpzSrePNYvmQwmA&e=>. ? Following the last review, a couple of other additional examples have been added (#19-22) that have not benefitted yet from WG input. The attached version only includes the proposed CCWG conclusions, since the conversion from a google document is not so straightforward, when it comes to comments. Highlighted in yellow are those examples where responses were mixed. Marika previously suggested to focus on re-writing the highlighted examples in such a way that they are either clearly consistent or clearly inconsistent with ICANN’s mission. Thank you. Best regards. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 13:19 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hi Marika, I'm not able to edit the example document I would like to add suggested example: Funding regional and national schools in Internet Governance. Usually those schools include in their curriculum sessions about ICANN and it's multistakeholder model. This does fall within ICANN mission. On Nov 14, 2017 19:03, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Hi Nadira, Note there is already an example project that focuses on “The development of capacity building, education and qualification-related programmes specifically targeting underserved populations in developing countries that * include primary school programmes about the internet and internet security issues, as well as about the DNS system and its related functions, that will develop an early understanding of the need for such knowledge * incorporate specific internet and DNS training and development subjects into secondary school qualification programmes to encourage students to enter this area as a career, etc….” – isn’t the example you provide of a similar nature and as such does not need to be specifically called out? Best regards, Marika From: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 06:18 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 16 November at 14.00 UTC Hi Marika, I'm not able to edit the example document I would like to add suggested example: Funding regional and national schools in Internet Governance. Usually those schools include in their curriculum sessions about ICANN and it's multistakeholder model. This does fall within ICANN mission. On Nov 14, 2017 19:03, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC. Please make sure to review the documents attached, especially the document for item 4. You are encouraged to review the questions identified in this document for accuracy (do these accurately reflect the comments that were provided during the F2F meeting) as well as whether there are any questions missing. Thanks, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 16 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / DOI – SOI Updates 3. Completing stage 2: * Review of updated examples document (see attached) * Open and Interoperable Internet description (DT expected to circulate latest version prior to meeting) * Discuss next steps 1. Stage 3 – review and refine questions for experts (see document attached) 2. Review and discuss updated work plan (see attached) 3. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting (Thursday 30 November 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds