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

Thu Dec 19 21:30:01 UTC 2019

Thank you Anne! I do appreciate this and it helps us to start the Second
Public Comment period soon.

Kind regards,
Erika

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:02 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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> *On
> Behalf Of *Sam Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 19, 2019 7:46 AM
> *To:* Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
> *Cc:* 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> 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
>
> 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
> 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/20191219/43344ce5/attachment-0001.html>