[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - proposed CCWG Final Report, indicative poll results and public comment announcement

[Sam Lanfranco]

Colleagues,

With regard to the fact that some of the rankings are close, and that 
nine of twenty-three participants did not respond, I am not sure of the 
best way forward here. Recommending mechanism A and mechanism B, while 
not discarding mechanism C yet, gives little guidance to our other 
colleagues with regard to how our deliberations assessed the relative 
strengths and weaknesses of the three mechanisms. Is there any way to up 
the response rate? Can we query to find out if poll absence was a 
deliberate abstention or an oversight?

Sam L.

On 12/18/2019 1:55 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> /Sending on behalf of the CCWG Co-Chairs/
>
> //
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for those who participated in the indicative poll and those 
> who submitted comments on the most recent draft of the proposed Final 
> Report. Attached please find the results of the indicative poll. As 
> summarized in the spreadsheet, fourteen members out of twenty-three 
> members responded. In addition, eight participants provided their input.
>
> In response to the question “Are you of the view that the CCWG should 
> only recommend one mechanism for ICANN Board consideration, even if 
> your preferred mechanism does not come out as the preferred mechanism 
> of the CCWG overall?”, six members indicated their preference to 
> recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, five 
> members indicated their preference to only recommend 1 mechanism, two 
> members indicated their preference to recommend all three mechanism 
> and one member indicated no preference.
>
> In response to the ranking, seven members recommended mechanism A as 
> their preferred mechanism, four members ranked mechanism B as their 
> preferred mechanism and three members ranked mechanism C first.
>
> After reviewing these results, the leadership team believes that the 
> best path forward is to recommend mechanism A and mechanism B in the 
> proposed Final Report, but the leadership team is not discarding 
> mechanism C (an ICANN Foundation) yet. The attached revision to the 
> proposed Final Report includes updates based on the most recent round 
> of comments from members, as well as revisions in line with the 
> leadership team’s suggested approach regarding the mechanisms. Note 
> that the report includes the following text: “As a number of members 
> did not participate in the indicative survey it is possible that the 
> outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, 
> consideration of input received and consultations by the members with 
> their respective appointing organizations.”
>
> The leadership team proposes that the CCWG review the poll results, 
> suggested approach, and report revisions *by the end of this week 
> (Friday 20 December)* and that we open the public comment forum on 
> Monday 23 December (see proposed announcement attached).
>
> Thanks in advance for your review.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Erika and Ching
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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/20191218/f8534ff2/attachment.html>