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

Thu Dec 19 21:02:02 UTC 2019

Yes, thank you Erika.  I think I picked up on that language re feasibility study in relation to recommending two mechanisms to the Board, but I can appreciate that given where the CCWG is procedurally, it would be best for me to recommend to CSG that our public comment on the Final Report provide input in favor of the Board instructing ICANN to issue an RFP for expert consultation comparing the mechanisms from the standpoint of (a) costs, (b) ease of start-up, (c) ease of winding down (“sunset”), and (d) overall risk management.

Thanks for your prompt response.
Anne

From: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:19 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - proposed CCWG Final Report, indicative poll results and public comment announcement

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Anne -

Concerning this particular topic, we're currently saying the following on page 12: "It is important to note that there are certain differences that apply as a result of the mechanism chosen which are further detailed in the responses to the charter questions in the sections below which have impacted the CCWG’s decision on which mechanism(s) to recommend to the ICANN Board. In considering these recommendations, the CCWG anticipates that the ICANN Board may conduct a feasibility assessment which provides further details on these aspects so that the Board can take an informed decision about supporting the most appropriate mechanism. . . "

I hope you can agree that we can keep the current language until we have had a chance to review comments we receive during the Second Public Comment period. The reason is that we don't want to open discussions at this stage again because it would mean we would have to postpone the timing for our Second Public Comment period. The current text covers the language we had discussed in the CCWG AP but it would make sense for you to offer a new text during the Second Public Comment period. The CCW AP will have a chance then to discuss your proposal.

Does this approach work for you?

Kind regards,
Erika

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:16 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
Regarding the language of the Final Report, I would like to propose that the CCWG consider, in connection with its recommendation to the Board to evaluate Mechanisms A and B, adding a sentence stating that the CCWG in fact recommends that the Board proceed with the contemplated feasibility study for the purpose of evaluating the two mechanisms.

Thank you,
Anne

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 7:46 AM
To: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - proposed CCWG Final Report, indicative poll results and public comment announcement

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________

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<mailto: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 list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto: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.

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191219/b4089d85/attachment-0001.html>