[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Wed Nov 27 01:30:21 UTC 2019

Hi John - just a note that I have personally set up a captive foundation such as the one in Mechanism C.    (But I am a new member so no reason you would know that.)

Separately, I certainly don't consider the relative costs of the three mechanisms as a matter of "implementation weeds" and apparently neither does ICANN since they place so much emphasis on the additional costs associated with setting up a foundation in their comments shown on pages 9 and 10 of the Proposed Final Report.

I have just been trying to get up to speed with the available information in order to be able to fill out the survey on ranking the mechanisms.  Setting up a foundation is relatively easy and is a one-time cost.  Onboarding and training personnel may be a one-time cost (probably equal in A and C) but it is quite expensive and not easy to "Sunset".  Hence, my question about market rates for Mechanism B - not at all a matter of being in the "weeds".    However, I don't know if fees in the current marketplace for Mechanism B services would be comparable and it appears we don't have hard data on that.

Regardless of your opinion re qualifications to rank mechanisms, we all have a survey to complete before December 3.

-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019


> Thanks Alan.  As I see it, onboarding and training are pretty big
> costs and that is why I was interested to know the estimated fees for
> Mechanism B.  Are we saying the CCWG has not actually developed any
> fee quotes for Mechanism B at this stage?

I should hope not.  That's way down in the implementation weeds.

Personally, I haven't seen evidence that the CCWG has the experience or expertise to recommend a corporate form (keeping in mind that I think I am the only person here who has actually set up a captive foundation like the one in Mechanism C) and we should stick to design criteria like separation of function between the people evaluating proposals and people handing out the money.

John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


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.

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list