[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 29 14:35:38 UTC 2019

Yes, Elliot, and I do appreciate your response and your clarification.

I learned a long time ago to watch the attendance at all meetings, but also to look at who posts to see who may be very actively engaged, but did a quick analysis of the attendance rates of each of the members, and also the participants, and I also looked at who posts. That took a lot of time but I thought it worthwhile, as my training in Organizational Development taught me to loo for the obvious and the non obvious.

Fortunately, the attendance records help us to document who is engaging. As do the posting records, which show the active engagement of several of the members and also some participants.

I think there are multiple indicators of commitment and interest:
e.g. people don't show up on calls, due to travel or conflicts with other meetings, but they read and post comments, which shows their active engagement.
e.g. people actively fill in the doodle polls so that a meeting with the most attendance can be selected
e.g. people who can't attend send regrets, so that it is clear they are participating, even if not able to attend a particular meeting.

We have been competing with the EPDP and I am not being critical, just making an observation but for many, it has sort of sucked all the air out of the room of participation and personally, I have to respect that, while also striving to make sure that the community has the participation that it expected.  Certainly, we have had great Board liaison, great staff support, dedicated co chairs, and a core group of participants.

But, in some ways, this is why I want a second public comment period, although I'd prefer a 30 day period for public comments.

Again, thanks for your reponse.


From: Elliot Noss <enoss at tucows.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:27 AM
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

“Playing along” was not meant in a derogatory way. In fact it was intended as a positive. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I should more accurately have said “still participating”. The people who join and lurk are many. Those who stick it out and work are few. That speaks positively of the few not the many. Hope that clarifies.

Iirc this started with something like 60+ people. We are probably 20% of that active at this point.


On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Elliot, can you clarify what you mean by "playing along".

I am a little challenged by that comment, given the amount of time that I devote to this CCWG.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Elliot Noss <enoss at tucows.com<mailto:enoss at tucows.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:08 AM
To: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal

I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I respect others opinions and efforts.

If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small group that is still playing along.


On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

agree with Maureen and Sam.
cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT what we are agreeing on.

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C447974893ed54a6caeed08d72c84b0bb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637026820715100992&sdata=Kvd032I7HW53ijUTmWc22MpQJghRUQ8bhe1CqXuQ4N8%3D&reserved=0>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7C447974893ed54a6caeed08d72c84b0bb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637026820715110997&sdata=l%2F9EfhsTOWm9DIsyHTA6D1tMAniyH5tt8qaGJsxKjvE%3D&reserved=0>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190829/86304e1e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list