<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Such a good discussion, helping make clear some zones. I am glad we are discussing this ccWG at the NCUC policy meeting happening now at icann59 with Elliot.<br><br><div>-----------------</div><div>Arsène Tungali,</div><div><a href="http://about.me/ArseneTungali">about.me/ArseneTungali</a></div><div>+243 993810967</div><div>GPG: 523644A0</div><div>Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo</div><div><br></div>Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)</div><div><br>On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:29 AM, Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca">lanfran@YORKU.CA</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Farzaneh,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the question. There was an extended segment within the
discussion of the auction proceeds ccWG section on the agenda, a
discussion that ranged far and wide beyond the scope and remit
that had been defined several times in previous meetings. That
discussion would have been more to the point, had there been more
awareness of what had transpired previously. I did not post the
comment with the intention to roast anybody, but to try to
underscore the importance of retaining the community knowledge
about what had been discussed before, and clarify the focus at
this stage in discussions. <br>
<br>
That the Charter language does not provide an absolute
clarification is not surprising, seldom is there absolute
clarification about anything, but it, and the discussion over the
past several meetings, have divided the task into two parts. The
first is how should the mechanism be structured, both in terms of
a good mechanism within ICANN's remit, and what issues need to be
dealt with in terms of ICANN's not-for-profit status. The Charter
tossing in "conflict of interest" issues at this point may have
been premature. That issue is more likely to come up when setting
the terms of reference for applying for, and awarding, auction
funds. However, one outcome of the work of this ccWG could be to
say that "conflict of interest" issues are handed off to the
second stage, where possibly another ccWG works on eligible uses
and eligibility criteria for funding applicants.<br>
<br>
Also missed, in the discussion, was that the output of this ccWG
goes back for consideration by Chartering Organizations, and not
to the Board. If I had to guess about how the process unfolds, I
suspect that this ccWG will be followed by a second ccWG (dealing
with eligible uses and eligibility criteria) and, at the end but
maybe with more intermediate steps, an overall proposal goes to
the Board for implementation. <br>
<br>
That is my read on where we are, and -lastly- it is my own opinion
that the two step process works best, and putting all the issues
in the table at the same time is not the best process here.<br>
<br>
Sam <br>
<br>
<font color="#660000">On 6/27/2017 1:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</font></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAN1qJvD=ViQgyZB9iEps8aaqLvC=3uo487OA7pJitJ8nNR1yxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1">Dear Sam, </font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1">Since I was not at the meeting and many NCSG
members were not present either, could you do me a favor and
tell me what prompted this email? You mean our only NCSG
representative (Stephanie) in that group (since no one else
volunteered, I believe) was not clear about the scope of the
group? Also to be honest I don't understand how the mandate
provides an absolute clarification. The mandate and scope of
this group are somehow vague. It says it does not include
discussion of uses or recipient but at the same time it says
it has to find ways on how to deal with potential or actual
conflict of interest and it has to even consider the scope
of fund allocation. I am not surprised if the NCSG
discussion sidetracked considering that the charter itself
is so vague! Good luck to whoever is working on this.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1">Best</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#660000" size="-1">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><font color="#660000" size="-1"><br clear="all">
</font>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#660000" size="-1">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<font color="#660000" size="-1">
</font><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Sam
Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>NCSG
Colleagues, <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>As
an aid to the rambling discussion about ICANN’s
auction funds in today’s Johannesburg NCSG meeting it
is worth a quick review of the goals & objectives
of the relevant CCWG, in order to understand the
limited scope and remit of the auctions CCWG. The
charter is found at: <span></span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-01-26+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+call?preview=/63156495/64064683/new%20gTLD%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20-%2022%20January%202017.pdf" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/CWGONGAP/2017-01-26+<wbr>CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+<wbr>Proceeds+call?preview=/<wbr>63156495/64064683/new%20gTLD%<wbr>20Auction%20Proceeds%<wbr>20Charter%20-%2022%20January%<wbr>202017.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>The
Goals & Objectives state that the CCWG tasked with
developing proposal(s) for consideration by Chartering
Organizations on [the] mechanism to be developed in
order to allocate new gTLD Auction Proceeds, and to
consider the scope of fund allocation, necessary
conditions to preserve ICANN’s tax status and how to
deal with potential or actual conflicts of interest. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>The
Charter specifically states that “The CCWG will <u>not</u>
[underlined in the Charter] make recommendations or
determinations with regards to specific funding
decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or
projects are to be considered eligible for funding, or
not). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Earlier
discussions at ICANN conferences and within the CCWG
meetings have reaffirmed that the Charter remit
includes the nature of the mechanism (an arm’s length
foundation, an ICANN based entity, etc.), the nature
of the governance of that mechanism, compliance with
ICANN’s not-for-profit status, and dealing with
conflict of interest. Earlier discussions also made
clear that the Charter remit <b><u>does not</u></b>
include a discussion of uses (for what?) or recipients
(for whom?). <span> </span>Those issues are to be
addressed in a subsequent, most likely working group,
consultation, probably with its own Charter. Lastly,
the proposals go "for consideration by the Chartering
Organizations" and not directly to the Board. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>A
lot more clarity, and less time off topic, could have
taken place in today’s meeting if this had been made
clear at the start, especially for the new NCSG
participants. <span> </span></span></p>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> <br>
<span>Sam Lanfranco</span><br>
<i><span>Canadian Society for International Health</span></i><br>
<pre class="m_1746092012327337959moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------<wbr>------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------<wbr>------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="m_1746092012327337959moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="m_1746092012327337959moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.<wbr>com</a>
Phone: <a href="tel:%28613%29%20476-0429" value="+16134760429" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">+1 613-476-0429</a> cell: <a href="tel:%28416%29%20816-2852" value="+14168162852" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">+1 416-816-2852</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>