For your information, please see below. We’ll add this input to the comment review tool. Best regards, Marika On 13/07/16 12:31, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote: Thanks Marika Our main input is that the current scope is too widely defined. The use of "not inconsistent" with ICANN's mission is a clear departure from the original intent to do something "good for the Internet" aligned with ICANN's principles ("support directly" was the original terms used). Anything that doesn't hurt the Internet would be OK by this weak requirement, such as growing corn with no water or developing clean energy sources. Although there are good projects, they won't help the Internet or the Web reach their full potential. The drafting team has done a good job at describing what would not be OK to fund from a procedural point of view (such as funding individuals, lobbying groups, inconsistent with ICANN's tax rules, etc), but so far has not clearly establish what should be the criteria the CCWG should use to further develop the grant instrument itself. We think that it should be made clear in the charter that - the funding will only go to Internet related projects, which are by nature technical, and not to anything marginally related to the Internet (everything is nowadays) and that doesn't hurt the Internet: it has to do good for the Internet, its shared infrastructure, it's users (as Internet users, not just as regular citizen) - use of funding should be in support of the main goals of ICANN: to improve the stability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. - it should consider criteria of global benefits vs. local benefits (e.g. is this funding going to help all Internet users or just a limited population ?) - it should consider criteria of long terms benefits vs. short terms results (hence the importance of funding infrastructure oriented things) - it should consider criteria of scaling effects: will a relatively small funding (e.g. 1M USD over the 100 available) have rippling benefits saving Internet users and the community much more than that in the end ? - it should consider additional criteria such as difficulty to be funded by usual granters (such as gov, large foundations). Also, the Internet being implemented as a stack of layers of technologies: - physical layer (e.g. optic cable, wifi, dsl), - logical/software (ip, dns, http, etc), - application (search, social platform, content), it would be useful for someone, the drafting team, or the CCWG, to explore the funding priorities along those lines. We think the focus should be on the middleware layers: from managing IP network, DNS, to improving the http/Web layers since these are the closest technologies in support of the Internet as seen by ICANN. Funding physicial layers work for instance might very well be used by a competitor network to IP, and funding pure content runs the same risks (of attracting users to another network than IP). Take care. Daniel Dardailler Director of International Relations W3C On 2016-07-11 15:01, Marika Konings wrote:

Hi Daniel,

There is no official comment period, but the DT invited those that were in attendance either in person or remotely during the session in Helsinki to provide their contributions via email if they did not have an opportunity to speak up during the session. The next meeting of the DT is scheduled for coming Thursday during which they will start reviewing the input received as part of the Helsinki session so ideally any comments you have are received prior to Thursday (you can send your comments to me and I will forward them to the drafting team). The latest version of the charter can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw.

Best regards,

Marika

On 11/07/16 14:32, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org> wrote:

Hello Marika

I'd like to know where I can find the latest charter for the CCWG on Auctions, and what is your deadline for acccepting comments.

Thanks.