<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">and here is James'
latest.....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 4 Sep 2017 19:05:58 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">From: </th>
<td>James Gannon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net"><james@cyberinvasion.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">To: </th>
<td>Erika Mann <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"><erika@erikamann.com></a>, Daniel
Dardailler <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:danield@w3.org"><danield@w3.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">CC: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"><ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
agree to a point Erica.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">And
allow me to be slightly less diplomatic for a moment,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
think what the crux of the issue is is that many people have
seen the potential impact of the 250m in the fund and have
amazing ideas on the impact that that may have. However what
we have lost sight of is the fact that that fund pales in
comparison to the value that ICANN derives from being secure
and stable. In my own personal opinion any steps by any
groups to make, allow or encourage ICANN to act outside of
its very carefully crafted mission must be pushed back on by
the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We
have just exited a very stressful and impactful 3 years
where we battled to wrest control of ICANN to the community,
and one of the greatest battles we fought was to enshrine a
limited mission into ICANNs bylaws to apply to everything
and anything ICANN does. To many across ICANN was one of the
hardest fought battles we had. And we cannot as the ICANN
community immediately put that back at risk (And yes I do
feel that disbursing the auction funds outside of the
mission would do that) and threaten to turn back on 3 years
of work for the potential impact of 250m USD. The value we
gain from not doing that and having a stable coordinator of
the DNS is much much greater than any impact the auction
funds could have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If
in fact we are going to reopen the mission discussion we
should seriously look at putting the auction fund in a high
interest bearing account for 10 years and come back to this
topic when the community is ready for another discussion
about ICANNs mission and where the funds can be disbursed
to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> Erika Mann [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">mailto:erika@erikamann.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 September 2017 19:20<br>
<b>To:</b> Daniel Dardailler <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:danield@w3.org"><danield@w3.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jon Nevett <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jon@donuts.email"><jon@donuts.email></a>; James Gannon
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net"><james@cyberinvasion.net></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply
to CCWG-AP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Daniel, James, Jon, Olawale, All - <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">personally I believe we open a can of
worms if we're going to bring is to the full CCWG to find
a solution. We will only postpone the decision and will
postpone therefore the implementation phase of the fund. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I rather hope that we can find a
diplomatic solution, a solution that will satisfy the
'mission statement' concept but will on the other hand
bring sufficient flexibility to the table to allow project
evaluators in the future to utilize maximum
flexibilities. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The 'open Internet' concept, if it's
turned into a introductory paragraph, will help evaluators
to understand the broader framing of the mission statement
within a defined Open Internet concept. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">BTW I do not agree that the current
ICANN budget allows to support truly important projects,
for example in the security and software area. And, so
much more could be done in certain training areas, for
example DNS software engineering, in particular if one
would like to see greater participation in/from developing
countries. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your comments! <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Erika<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Daniel
Dardailler <<a href="mailto:danield@w3.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">danield@w3.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2017-09-04 19:08, Jon Nevett
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with James here and don't
think that the Board's position is a<br>
paradox. The ICANN org already is doing what it
thinks it can do to<br>
support the ICANN mission based on its current
financial position.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Is the current financial position of ICANN really an
impediment to what ICANN wants to do in support of its
mission ? I was under the impression that ICANN's budget
was healthy enough to implement its mission optimally
today, with also a large untouched pot coming from the
new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I
understand correctly).<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">That doesn't mean that the ICANN
community couldn't do more to support<br>
the mission with use of the auction proceeds.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN
community (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission)
vs. to give them back to the board directly, given that
the board is driven by the community ?<br>
<br>
Moreover, will the board/ICANN community accept to
delegate some of their responsibility to implement the
ICANN mission to some external grantees ? Not without a
clear control process IMO, which means ICANN will
certainly have to manage the granting process itself
(adding an intermediary foundation would raise too high
the risks of funding doing bad things for ICANN/its
mission).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best,
Jon<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM,
James Gannon <<a
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Yes agreed that this is the most crucial part of
the response! But I think what the board is
saying (And indeed what I have mentioned a few
times) is that the funds are restricted by the
ICANN mission and core values, and thus to look
at disbursements outside of that, the mission
and core values must be changed, which being
very honest is not something that will happen in
the short or medium term future and certainly
not within the lifetime of this CCWG.<br>
<br>
-James<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler<br>
Sent: 04 September 2017 17:23<br>
To: Erika Mann <<a
href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">erika@erikamann.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board
reply to CCWG-AP<br>
<br>
Thanks Erika.<br>
<br>
To me, the important bit is this one:<br>
".. If the CCWG is dissatisfied with the
restrictions that the enumerated mission
statement places on the outcomes of the CCWG’s
work, that is a fundamental question for the
ICANN community to resolve, as the ICANN Board
is holding the organization to the mission that
the ICANN community developed through the
Enhancing ICANN Accountability process"<br>
<br>
I think our current discussions on Open Internet
description shows a consensus in our group wrt
to the mission enumerated statement being too
limited (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols) for the
scope we foresee.<br>
<br>
If we can get consensus on this point, then we
can start making a case in front of the ICANN
community that the auction funds are special for
various reasons:<br>
<br>
- they are supposed to be used outside of the
ICANN regular operational budget, but are
legally restricted to be spent only on these
operational items (mission listing). That's a
paradox in itself.<br>
- they are supposed to be used for the good of
the Internet (which we are turning into "in
support of the Open Internet"), which is a
concept not limited to the ICANN mission<br>
- they are a one time event and extending the
scope of their granting beyond the ICANN limited
mission will not endanger the ICANN mission and
role itself.<br>
- ICANN doesn't live in a vacuum and there is
value to ICANN (and its<br>
mission) to do a scope extension for these funds<br>
- ICANN's first commitment, in the By-Laws:
"Preserve and enhance the administration of the
DNS and the operational stability, reliability,
security, global interoperability, resilience,
and openness of the DNS and the Internet"<br>
covers our vision of scope extension pretty
well since it can be read as "Preserve and
enhance .. the operational stability,
reliability, security, global interoperability,
resilience, and openness of ... the Internet".<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2017-09-04 16:29, Erika Mann wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All -<br>
<br>
herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our
letter.<br>
<br>
We will have a first exchange on Thursday this
week, during our CCWG<br>
AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply,
saying that we will<br>
discuss the Board letter then for the first
time.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Erika<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: STEVE CROCKER <<a
href="mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">steve.crocker@board.icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM<br>
Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP<br>
To: Erika Mann <<a
href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">erika@erikamann.com</a>>,
Ching Chiao <<a
href="mailto:chiao@brandma.co"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">chiao@brandma.co</a>>,<br>
Marika Konings <<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
Cc: Steve Crocker <<a
href="mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">steve.crocker@board.icann.org</a>>,
Marika Konings<br>
<<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>>,
Icann-board ICANN <<a
href="mailto:icann-board@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">icann-board@icann.org</a>>,<br>
Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">avri@apc.org</a>>,
"Sarah B. Deutsch"<br>
<<a href="mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com</a>>,
Board Operations<br>
<<a href="mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Board-Ops-Team@icann.org</a>>,
Sally Costerton<br>
<<a href="mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sally.costerton@icann.org</a>>,
Samantha Eisner<br>
<<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>,
Lauren Allison <<a
href="mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lauren.allison@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Dear Erika and Ching,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your letter received on May 22,
2017 on behalf of the<br>
Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD
Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)<br>
in response to the Board email of March 2nd
2017.<br>
<br>
On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see
that we are aligned in<br>
our thinking regarding the points discussed in
the original email.<br>
Specifically, in response to your letter,
please find attached a<br>
letter including additional acknowledgements
and requested<br>
clarifications.<br>
<br>
Thank you again for your efforts leading this
work.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>