On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

My 2c with regards to the task set about whether we should add something specific about including UA as a possible Auction Proceeds project when it is already funded as a project under ICANN. With this, and similar projects, I think we need to first look at what is actually being funded by ICANN and whether projects that are important to ICANN's mission but cannot be funded by ICANN could be covered by auction proceeds.

UASG always ends the year with unspent money. It doesn't need any more, and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace existing ICANN funding. I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move on. R's, John

I do have some suggestions that do not need to replace the "example" list but augment it I propose a short discussion on the following as one of the small group drafters: Example: ICANN has cut short funding for CROP, which is a program available to each constituency/SG, that used to have up to five annually, with 1 -2 out of region, to do awareness/recruitment. It is now only 3, and in region. My suggestion is that funding applications from constituencies/SGs/SO/ACs that are similar in purpose should be accepted if they meet the "consistent with ICANN's core mission and activities" criteria. Rationale: Building awareness and recruitment into engagement at ICANN takes many forms, and the Fellowship Program is not really. an effective modality for the BC, or the contracted parties, as analysis of that program shows, even as it brings different value. Bringing a speaker with expertise to a national or sub regional event that can explain ICANN from the "community" perspective brings significant value. Proposals could be limited in number and limited to $5,000 per event. Example: ICANN has cut and limited community funding for bringing together community groups at external IG events such as Internet Governance Forum; RIR events; IEEE and IETF events -- all of which build engagement. Events that are domain registry/registrar focused are assumed not to need funding but in reality, to build the DNS business in developing countries and LDCs, some travel sponsorships for qualified and committed participants could spark more DNS suppliers back at the national and sub regional levels. Applications for engagement in a wide number of events -- ranging from IGF, to national and sub regional IGFs, to technical events, to specially focused DNS business development events with rationale for benefit and contribution to the ICANN mission and core principles should be accepted Note: Although ICANN Org Engagement seems to have pretty unlimited funding for their staff and for Board members to travel, without much transparency, programs that support the community continue to be cut. Example: Community engagement in standards entities -- ranging from WWW, to IETF, to IEEE to new approaches, such as Moz:lla's work on Ethics in AI Proposals that support engagement and even hosting of events that broaden and deepen engagement are great examples that could be supported Example: Scholars focused on research that advance technical areas that affect ICANN's mission and core activities. This would require advice from SSAC and other experts, including from IAB/IETF, WWW; IEEE, and more but could provide a category that applications could be submitted Example: National and sub regional activities that affect the Internet and ICANN's core mission This is already addressed, I think. but just want to reinforce it as a core priority Example: Advancing how Youth and Children can benefit from the Internet I am not going to elaborate much on this but it could be access projects that connect the unconnected; it could e about bringing in youth voices to ICANN or other IG events that ICANN participates in, such as the national IGFs. Example: Engaging elected and appointed policy makers -- advancing awareness Increasingly, elected and appointed policy makers are asking how to regulate the Internet and this affects ICANN's role. Examples like the Internet Congressional Caucus and a similar initiative in Europe have brought parliamentarians forward as champions of the Internet and ICANN. Proposals from a national level to engage with Parliamentarians and key Ministries at the national level to advance endorsement of ICANN's role should be accepted. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 2:35 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items On 07-04-19 23:03, John R Levine wrote: I agree 100% with John. Julf

UASG always ends the year with unspent money. It doesn't need any more, and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace existing ICANN funding.

I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move on.

R's, John

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0

Dear All - In light of the comments concerning this email exchange, I thought it might be worth reminding you of the CCWG discussion on this topic during the Kobe meeting in which we noted that: “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements”. Similarly, the ICANN Board provided input on this topic in its most recent letter (see https://community.icann.org/x/V7XRAw) noting that: *2. Regarding ICANN SO/ACs:* 1. *SO/AC structures that are not legal entities in their own right, independent of the multi-stakeholder ICANN structure, would be unable to apply for proceeds as they likely do not meet due diligence requirements as identified in the initial legal and fiduciary concerns memo.* 1. *This would not preclude consideration of applications from participants in an SO/AC structure that are also established legal entities outside the multistakeholder model provided:* *I. The request does not include an activity or project that is or should be covered by ICANN’s operational budget;* *II. Conflict of interest considerations are met, including but not limited to ensuring that those applying are not part of the evaluation process; and* *III. All other application criteria are met.* As such, I would like to remind the small team of the action item coming out of Kobe which was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements” which are also referenced in the Board input. Thank you for all the work and I'm looking forward to our discussion on Wednesday! Erika On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:10 PM Daniel Dardailler < daniel.dardailler@gmail.com> wrote:

IMO, it doesn't matter much if ICANN has funded an initiative in the past, or even is currently funding a given initiative. The arbitrary label (and its wide corevage of a given technical field), given to the initiative at one point in time, for instance UA, shouldn't preclude some projects to be funded in this area.

What matters (in addition to being in service of ICANN mission, but we can assume this is the case since we're talking about something ICANN has or is already funding) is that: - the existing initiative doesn't cover any ICANN operational costs (that is, staff salary, meetings, etc) but something that is already an outside measure of some sort, e.g. grants going to external parties, or their mgnt done by third-parties.

- there is no double spending of any kind (this would just be illegal)

So if tomorrow, the team in charge of disbursing the existing ICANN UA grants (some hundreds of K) wants to apply with the Auctions benefits grant agency (for some millions, and a much bigger project maybe), I don't see why they should be prevented to do it.

I think we need a clearer definition of what's in the ICANN operational budget and what's not in it (but is still something paid by ICANN, maybe on a non-regular time basis, and for reasons identified as new issues that need external actions).

For instance, the ICANN UA program funding is a reaction to the unforeseen difficulties user agents (e.g. browsers, mailers) have with sending non-ascii strings to DNS resolvers. It requires more that just internal ICANN committee work, and it will hopefully stop being relevant when all the relevant specs and software are fixed.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:32 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

I do have some suggestions that do not need to replace the "example" list but augment it

I propose a short discussion on the following as one of the small group drafters:

Example: ICANN has cut short funding for CROP, which is a program available to each constituency/SG, that used to have up to five annually, with 1 -2 out of region, to do awareness/recruitment. It is now only 3, and in region.

My suggestion is that funding applications from constituencies/SGs/SO/ACs that are similar in purpose should be accepted if they meet the "consistent with ICANN's core mission and activities" criteria.

Rationale: Building awareness and recruitment into engagement at ICANN takes many forms, and the Fellowship Program is not really. an effective modality for the BC, or the contracted parties, as analysis of that program shows, even as it brings different value. Bringing a speaker with expertise to a national or sub regional event that can explain ICANN from the "community" perspective brings significant value. Proposals could be limited in number and limited to $5,000 per event.

Example: ICANN has cut and limited community funding for bringing together community groups at external IG events such as Internet Governance Forum; RIR events; IEEE and IETF events -- all of which build engagement. Events that are domain registry/registrar focused are assumed not to need funding but in reality, to build the DNS business in developing countries and LDCs, some travel sponsorships for qualified and committed participants could spark more DNS suppliers back at the national and sub regional levels.

Applications for engagement in a wide number of events -- ranging from IGF, to national and sub regional IGFs, to technical events, to specially focused DNS business development events with rationale for benefit and contribution to the ICANN mission and core principles should be accepted

Note: Although ICANN Org Engagement seems to have pretty unlimited funding for their staff and for Board members to travel, without much transparency, programs that support the community continue to be cut.

Example: Community engagement in standards entities -- ranging from WWW, to IETF, to IEEE to new approaches, such as Moz:lla's work on Ethics in AI

Proposals that support engagement and even hosting of events that broaden and deepen engagement are great examples that could be supported

Example: Scholars focused on research that advance technical areas that affect ICANN's mission and core activities.

This would require advice from SSAC and other experts, including from IAB/IETF, WWW; IEEE, and more but could provide a category that applications could be submitted

Example: National and sub regional activities that affect the Internet and ICANN's core mission This is already addressed, I think. but just want to reinforce it as a core priority

Example: Advancing how Youth and Children can benefit from the Internet I am not going to elaborate much on this but it could be access projects that connect the unconnected; it could e about bringing in youth voices to ICANN or other IG events that ICANN participates in, such as the national IGFs.

Example: Engaging elected and appointed policy makers -- advancing awareness Increasingly, elected and appointed policy makers are asking how to regulate the Internet and this affects ICANN's role. Examples like the Internet Congressional Caucus and a similar initiative in Europe have brought parliamentarians forward as champions of the Internet and ICANN. Proposals from a national level to engage with Parliamentarians and key Ministries at the national level to advance endorsement of ICANN's role should be accepted. ------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 8, 2019 2:35 AM *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items

On 07-04-19 23:03, John R Levine wrote:

I agree 100% with John.

Julf

...

UASG always ends the year with unspent money. It doesn't need any more, and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace existing ICANN funding.

I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move on.

R's, John

---

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org

https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ 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 Erika, Fully agree with your note below. Engagement is an explicit part of ICANN’s mission, and operational budget, and there are a wide range of programmes in place to maximise available resources to help those affected by ICANN’s work around the world to participate in our work. Funding for these programmes is prioritised within the community approved budget, every year. Best regards Maarten & Becky From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Monday, 8 April 2019 21:08 To: daniel@dardailler.net Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items Dear All - In light of the comments concerning this email exchange, I thought it might be worth reminding you of the CCWG discussion on this topic during the Kobe meeting in which we noted that: “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements”. Similarly, the ICANN Board provided input on this topic in its most recent letter (see https://community.icann.org/x/V7XRAw) noting that: 2. Regarding ICANN SO/ACs: a. SO/AC structures that are not legal entities in their own right, independent of the multi-stakeholder ICANN structure, would be unable to apply for proceeds as they likely do not meet due diligence requirements as identified in the initial legal and fiduciary concerns memo. b. This would not preclude consideration of applications from participants in an SO/AC structure that are also established legal entities outside the multistakeholder model provided: I. The request does not include an activity or project that is or should be covered by ICANN’s operational budget; II. Conflict of interest considerations are met, including but not limited to ensuring that those applying are not part of the evaluation process; and III. All other application criteria are met. As such, I would like to remind the small team of the action item coming out of Kobe which was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements” which are also referenced in the Board input. Thank you for all the work and I'm looking forward to our discussion on Wednesday! Erika On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:10 PM Daniel Dardailler <daniel.dardailler@gmail.com <mailto:daniel.dardailler@gmail.com> > wrote: IMO, it doesn't matter much if ICANN has funded an initiative in the past, or even is currently funding a given initiative. The arbitrary label (and its wide corevage of a given technical field), given to the initiative at one point in time, for instance UA, shouldn't preclude some projects to be funded in this area. What matters (in addition to being in service of ICANN mission, but we can assume this is the case since we're talking about something ICANN has or is already funding) is that: - the existing initiative doesn't cover any ICANN operational costs (that is, staff salary, meetings, etc) but something that is already an outside measure of some sort, e.g. grants going to external parties, or their mgnt done by third-parties. - there is no double spending of any kind (this would just be illegal) So if tomorrow, the team in charge of disbursing the existing ICANN UA grants (some hundreds of K) wants to apply with the Auctions benefits grant agency (for some millions, and a much bigger project maybe), I don't see why they should be prevented to do it. I think we need a clearer definition of what's in the ICANN operational budget and what's not in it (but is still something paid by ICANN, maybe on a non-regular time basis, and for reasons identified as new issues that need external actions). For instance, the ICANN UA program funding is a reaction to the unforeseen difficulties user agents (e.g. browsers, mailers) have with sending non-ascii strings to DNS resolvers. It requires more that just internal ICANN committee work, and it will hopefully stop being relevant when all the relevant specs and software are fixed. On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:32 PM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: I do have some suggestions that do not need to replace the "example" list but augment it I propose a short discussion on the following as one of the small group drafters: Example: ICANN has cut short funding for CROP, which is a program available to each constituency/SG, that used to have up to five annually, with 1 -2 out of region, to do awareness/recruitment. It is now only 3, and in region. My suggestion is that funding applications from constituencies/SGs/SO/ACs that are similar in purpose should be accepted if they meet the "consistent with ICANN's core mission and activities" criteria. Rationale: Building awareness and recruitment into engagement at ICANN takes many forms, and the Fellowship Program is not really. an effective modality for the BC, or the contracted parties, as analysis of that program shows, even as it brings different value. Bringing a speaker with expertise to a national or sub regional event that can explain ICANN from the "community" perspective brings significant value. Proposals could be limited in number and limited to $5,000 per event. Example: ICANN has cut and limited community funding for bringing together community groups at external IG events such as Internet Governance Forum; RIR events; IEEE and IETF events -- all of which build engagement. Events that are domain registry/registrar focused are assumed not to need funding but in reality, to build the DNS business in developing countries and LDCs, some travel sponsorships for qualified and committed participants could spark more DNS suppliers back at the national and sub regional levels. Applications for engagement in a wide number of events -- ranging from IGF, to national and sub regional IGFs, to technical events, to specially focused DNS business development events with rationale for benefit and contribution to the ICANN mission and core principles should be accepted Note: Although ICANN Org Engagement seems to have pretty unlimited funding for their staff and for Board members to travel, without much transparency, programs that support the community continue to be cut. Example: Community engagement in standards entities -- ranging from WWW, to IETF, to IEEE to new approaches, such as Moz:lla's work on Ethics in AI Proposals that support engagement and even hosting of events that broaden and deepen engagement are great examples that could be supported Example: Scholars focused on research that advance technical areas that affect ICANN's mission and core activities. This would require advice from SSAC and other experts, including from IAB/IETF, WWW; IEEE, and more but could provide a category that applications could be submitted Example: National and sub regional activities that affect the Internet and ICANN's core mission This is already addressed, I think. but just want to reinforce it as a core priority Example: Advancing how Youth and Children can benefit from the Internet I am not going to elaborate much on this but it could be access projects that connect the unconnected; it could e about bringing in youth voices to ICANN or other IG events that ICANN participates in, such as the national IGFs. Example: Engaging elected and appointed policy makers -- advancing awareness Increasingly, elected and appointed policy makers are asking how to regulate the Internet and this affects ICANN's role. Examples like the Internet Congressional Caucus and a similar initiative in Europe have brought parliamentarians forward as champions of the Internet and ICANN. Proposals from a national level to engage with Parliamentarians and key Ministries at the national level to advance endorsement of ICANN's role should be accepted. _____ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 2:35 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items On 07-04-19 23:03, John R Levine wrote: I agree 100% with John. Julf

UASG always ends the year with unspent money. It doesn't need any more, and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace existing ICANN funding.

I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move on.

R's, John

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0> &data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Hi All, I want to take a different view with respect to a number of Marilyn’s examples. The distinction I would like to draw is programs for the benefit of ICANN vs. programs for the benefit of the Internet. These are not the same thing and I believe we need to resolve this fundamental question. I believe the point of this exercise is clearly to promote programs for the benefit of the Internet more broadly. A number of the examples below deal with items that benefit ICANN directly and may or may not benefit the Internet. Participation broadly in ICANN matters is clearly about the institution itself and clearly should be within the operating budget. The last numbers I heard were that in some meetings as many as 25% of participants received funding. We should get current data to inform this discussion. I am in favour of this funding and would LOVE to see it more focused (needs-based rather than “earned” through position). Coming from a constituency that suffers in having to respond to those who are much more well-funded than us I appreciate the importance AND this is not at all what the auction proceeds were intended to address. This is a very important discussion and I am surprised we are still here this late in the game. EN

On Apr 9, 2019, at 12:19 AM, Mei Lin Fung <mlf@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

I support Marilyn's suggestion - it is so important that people who cannot otherwise afford to - get the chance to participate in international gatherings - we lose something when only those who can afford to speak up, contribute their experience.

For connecting the unconnected, we need to hear from them, engage with them, involve them in design and decision making - taking the effort and spending the money to do it is even more important for ICANN since the for profit companies are driven by the profit motive and self interest.

When women are elected, but lack the skills, and we do nothing to support them - that is a waste not just of a single women, but the women of an entire country who could have benefited by having a woman's voice and leadership in the highest circles in the country.

Women speak up and advocate for families, for the children, for the elderly, for future generations - this is an inconvenient truth in circles where they are the minority, and sometimes the only one in the room. Yet society needs this advocacy.

If ICANN with the blessing of auction proceeds does not support helping the currently excluded have a seat at the table, then who will? if not now, when?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:32 AM Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: I do have some suggestions that do not need to replace the "example" list but augment it

I propose a short discussion on the following as one of the small group drafters:

Example: ICANN has cut short funding for CROP, which is a program available to each constituency/SG, that used to have up to five annually, with 1 -2 out of region, to do awareness/recruitment. It is now only 3, and in region.

My suggestion is that funding applications from constituencies/SGs/SO/ACs that are similar in purpose should be accepted if they meet the "consistent with ICANN's core mission and activities" criteria.

Rationale: Building awareness and recruitment into engagement at ICANN takes many forms, and the Fellowship Program is not really. an effective modality for the BC, or the contracted parties, as analysis of that program shows, even as it brings different value. Bringing a speaker with expertise to a national or sub regional event that can explain ICANN from the "community" perspective brings significant value. Proposals could be limited in number and limited to $5,000 per event.

Example: ICANN has cut and limited community funding for bringing together community groups at external IG events such as Internet Governance Forum; RIR events; IEEE and IETF events -- all of which build engagement. Events that are domain registry/registrar focused are assumed not to need funding but in reality, to build the DNS business in developing countries and LDCs, some travel sponsorships for qualified and committed participants could spark more DNS suppliers back at the national and sub regional levels.

Applications for engagement in a wide number of events -- ranging from IGF, to national and sub regional IGFs, to technical events, to specially focused DNS business development events with rationale for benefit and contribution to the ICANN mission and core principles should be accepted

Note: Although ICANN Org Engagement seems to have pretty unlimited funding for their staff and for Board members to travel, without much transparency, programs that support the community continue to be cut.

Example: Community engagement in standards entities -- ranging from WWW, to IETF, to IEEE to new approaches, such as Moz:lla's work on Ethics in AI

Proposals that support engagement and even hosting of events that broaden and deepen engagement are great examples that could be supported

Example: Scholars focused on research that advance technical areas that affect ICANN's mission and core activities.

This would require advice from SSAC and other experts, including from IAB/IETF, WWW; IEEE, and more but could provide a category that applications could be submitted

Example: National and sub regional activities that affect the Internet and ICANN's core mission This is already addressed, I think. but just want to reinforce it as a core priority

Example: Advancing how Youth and Children can benefit from the Internet I am not going to elaborate much on this but it could be access projects that connect the unconnected; it could e about bringing in youth voices to ICANN or other IG events that ICANN participates in, such as the national IGFs.

Example: Engaging elected and appointed policy makers -- advancing awareness Increasingly, elected and appointed policy makers are asking how to regulate the Internet and this affects ICANN's role. Examples like the Internet Congressional Caucus and a similar initiative in Europe have brought parliamentarians forward as champions of the Internet and ICANN. Proposals from a national level to engage with Parliamentarians and key Ministries at the national level to advance endorsement of ICANN's role should be accepted. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 2:35 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Updated templates and action items

On 07-04-19 23:03, John R Levine wrote:

I agree 100% with John.

Julf

...

UASG always ends the year with unspent money. It doesn't need any more, and I hope it goes without saying that auction proceeds shouldn't replace existing ICANN funding.

I think the example list is fine and would prefer to accept it and move on.

R's, John

---

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3caff029e08c426fdf4c08d6bbec6b59%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636903021439223014&sdata=kvv0pgFGlFdyP4ZEigt8dGmjrY%2F%2FCqv8tRodSJidk0Y%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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

-- Mei Lin Fung Unit Coordinator, California Health Medical Reserve Corp <https://mrc.hhs.gov/HomePage> Secretary of the Board, co-founder, People Centered Internet <http://www.peoplecentered.net/> External advisor to the Stanford University Center for Population Health Science <http://med.stanford.edu/phs.html> Member of the Steering Committee, World Economic Forum, Internet for All <https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all> Liaison to the IEEE Standards Association <https://standards.ieee.org/> for IEEE Humanitarian Activities Committee <https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/humanitarian-activities-committee.html>

(e) mlf@alum.mit.edu <mailto:mlf@alum.mit.edu> ; mlfung@gmail.com <mailto:mlfiung@gmail.com> (t) meilinfung _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds