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

[Erika Mann]

Sam -

Not sure what you mean with your first two sentences but I see all three
mechanism as good options, though model B) is maybe the most complex one.
Additionally, Mechanism A) and even C) could always decide to work with
another entity with regard to specific projects. Insofar Mechanism B) could
survive in different forms in the future.

Thank you,
Erika

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:46 PM Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> Erika,
>
> Okay, when I make such observations, I am not like a dog with a bone. I
> don't hang on to them for dear lilfe.
>
> After discussion, more evidence and logic, I can even vote against what I
> put on the table.
>
> Sam
> On 12/18/2019 11:33 PM, Erika Mann wrote:
>
> Sam - let’s keep it as it is, the language reflects reality. We have a
> consensus call after the next Public Comment period and, hopefully by then,
> all members are going to have consulted with their constituents are are
> able to vote.
>
> Kind regards,
> Erika
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 18, 2019, at 11:10 PM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote: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 listCcwg-auctionproceeds at icann.orghttps://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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191219/3210af31/attachment.html>