[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
marika.konings at icann.org
Sat Aug 31 12:54:06 UTC 2019
Thanks, Marilyn for flagging this. I’ve updated the section you refer to with yellow highlighting to make clear that it will need to be updated per the outcome of the survey. The language there is a remainder from the Initial Report where the original focus was on mechanisms A an B. There are some other spots in the report where we have flagged that if mechanism C will be recommended as a result of the survey, the language will need to be enhanced as it is currently lacking.
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 04:50
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
Thanks for sending the present DRAFT Final Report.
I will spend time reading the full report in more detail, having only skimmed it now, at 6 am my time.
However, I have an immediate serious issue with page 14 and 15.
We have spent the last several weeks discussing Mechanism A and Mechanism C. Almost no time even mentioning Mechanism B. Yet, I see in the report that Mechanism C is not even referenced under Charter Question #7.
By staff and the leadership team even including Mechanism A and B here, it implies that these are the two mechanisms preferred for further assessment.
I do not believe that is generally supported by the majority of the members of the CCWG-AP.
We haven't yet "rated" the three mechanisms, but we have primarily discussed only two in the recent discussions -- and that does not include Mechanism B.
So, I don't see what the justification is for excluding Mechanism C here OR,
these two paragraphs should be edited out and just keep the new text.
I am sure no one means to reflect a preference here, and possibly this is just unfortunate.
However, think about it: if the "rating" we are doing selects A and C, and then the staff/leadership draft in the next paragraph shows preference for A and B, it gives a very confusing message to the community, to the Board, and to the SO/ACs.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 6:29 PM
To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
Please find here for your review the latest version of the Final Report: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1hWfSYXuhAalh7F_AkkPDuxU7xf-_bNcR/view?usp=sharing [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fdrive.google.com-252Fa-252Ficann.org-252Ffile-252Fd-252F1hWfSYXuhAalh7F-5FAkkPDuxU7xf-2D-5FbNcR-252Fview-253Fusp-253Dsharing-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C3419acf80cd44b37415808d72d997df9-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637028010132230823-26sdata-3DR-252BTRNsQ3B4BDbPvzOlJInGdDlAiKKt-252BQPSTs-252BPxKX50-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=yDQJ5DczajN9TZBbXRHSYfHvSJVrTjR4D3duZHx8x7w&s=jPVH4K7cyUaS4SDjcKrNKd5R-Uwf37H6cYMkdyUC7VE&e=>. Attached you will find a redline version that shows you all the updates that have been made since the previous version but as the large number of redlines may be slightly overwhelming, we have posted the clean version for review and comments. Please note the following:
* Text highlighted in blue are those developed by the different small teams and are new compared to the previous version of the report;
* Text highlighted in yellow are items that need to be updated after completion of the survey and decision on whether or not to publish for public comment.
* Redlines in the attached version are updates in response to comments received on the previous version, clarifications or the result of reorganization of the text because certain recommendations seemed to fit better under a different charter questions.
You are requested to focus your review on any ‘cannot live with items’ that need further discussion or consideration. Of course, if you spot any grammatical errors, inconsistencies or language that could be clarified, please note those as well. As a reminder your input is requested by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest (see timeline below).
Expected Timing - By
Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting
Friday 23 August 2019
Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review
Friday 30 August 2019
CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern
Wednesday 11 September 2019
* Discuss any major concerns identified
* Consider whether a public comment period is desirable
Wednesday 18 September 2019
Launch indicative survey on mechanisms
Friday 20 September 2019
Publish results of indicative survey
Friday 27 September 2019
CCWG members to consult with respective groups
Friday 11 October 2019
Re-launch survey on mechanisms
Monday 14 October 2019
Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO
Friday 25 October 2019
ICANN66 session to present Final Report
Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flearn.icann.org-252Fcourses-252Fgnso-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C3419acf80cd44b37415808d72d997df9-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637028010132240835-26sdata-3DjGz-252BjbK4scw2fi9bA-252Bh78-252F1f-252BZxBSEDUBsI0xIT5xw8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=yDQJ5DczajN9TZBbXRHSYfHvSJVrTjR4D3duZHx8x7w&s=Ptx7YhFoYTohfbuM0a9l9wqbg-4-7gqhtsvAReLGzCU&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Fsites-252Fgnso.icann.org-252Ffiles-252Fgnso-252Fpresentations-252Fpolicy-2Defforts.htm-2523newcomers-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C3419acf80cd44b37415808d72d997df9-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637028010132250840-26sdata-3DunTDHUxwkplfC9Vnb8oyEEAqm7pmqnQo91AXbYPBjI8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=yDQJ5DczajN9TZBbXRHSYfHvSJVrTjR4D3duZHx8x7w&s=n-ultNH8pcoofNa5tVXjy7qYSf8ULAnz0uhLNJUtMRc&e=>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds