[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
emily.barabas at icann.org
Sat Nov 23 16:03:46 UTC 2019
Hi Erika and Anne,
Thanks for the question. The text in this section quotes directly the response that ICANN org sent the CCWG in response to the CCWG’s question about the relative costs of mechanisms A and C (see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Responses?preview=/90770179/120815656/CCWG-AP%20Finance%20and%20Legal%20Questions%20Response%2010%20October%202019.pdf). It quoted without omitting any text so that readers can see the full context.
Would it address the issue to add a footnote stating that if mechanism C is ultimately selected, the CCWG anticipates that the implementation will look like scenario C1 and not C2?
From: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
Date: Saturday, 23 November 2019 at 09:21
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
Anne - if there are remaining inconsistencies, we will certainly review them and change them before we publish the second PC. I reviewed the text completely and I must admit I did not notice this particular inconsistency.
Maybe it relates to a direct quote(s) and in these case we decided to keep the original quote. If this is the case, we can certainly add a footnote.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
Thanks Emily. As an initial question re the revisions, I don’t know why we still have text related to Board advice on “Scenario C2” if that scenario is equivalent to Mechanism D which has been rejected by the CCWG. All of the language relative to Scenario C2 reprinted from the Board advice, as previously commented, is just confusing to the public.
Could someone please clarify?
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM
To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
Please find attached the latest revision of the proposed Final Report. This version incorporates input received over the mailing list since 8 November. It also includes some suggested edits from the leadership team intended to improve clarity and consistency of the text in certain sections. If you have concerns about any of the suggested edits, please respond on the mailing list by Tuesday 3 December.
As agreed by the CCWG during the face-to-face session at ICANN66, the next step is to open the indicative poll on possible mechanisms for allocation of auction proceeds. You can access the poll here: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=1db40f7xlo0xj [input.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-3D1db40f7xlo0xj&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=qDmFvRSjzl1suVe-ldIVkOe4hHJ9im5L8oEvOLG8Fyk&s=ESrf1tav0bxtDH6fZiNrSz8TKh_FCzv6HsWC0Ch5m5U&e=>. Members and participants are both encouraged to complete the poll.
As a reminder, it is not necessary to consult with your groups to respond to this poll. You can respond from your own perspective based on the CCWG discussions to date and your own analysis. The results of the indicative poll will be used to finalize content on the recommended mechanism(s) in the proposed Final Report. During the public comment period on the proposed Final Report, SO/ACs and SG/Cs will have an opportunity to respond to the recommendations in the report and members can ensure at that point that they are aligned with their groups.
The deadline for completing the indicative poll is 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 3 December. An outline of the timeline for next steps is attached for reference.
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
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.
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds