[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Fw: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds

[Marilyn Cade]

With apologies, I didn't realize I had not copied the CCWG-AP list.
Thanks, Marika, for pointing that out.

Perhaps my key points include being clear and neutral on how the description of the 3 options is presented in the poll, and that there should be a second public comment period -- we have made a LOT of changes and enhancements, and it is quite unfair to the communities to not allow them to provide input.

We could, however, develop a more targeted comment process, which highlights the areas where there has been significant enhancement, or further elaboration, so keep the comments very focused on those areas.

Marilyn Cade

________________________________




From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 13:02
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Fw: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds



With apologies, Marika, I spent most of yesterday afternoon dealing with a virus on my MacBook/amazing how long it took for Apple Genius to actually turn out to be a genius!



In any case, if not too late.....



 I didn't do edits, but focused on just four areas.





CSG response:  Submitted by Marilyn Cade

I. Plans to take "polls":

-Polling must be presented completely factually and neutrally regarding the three

Mechanisms A,B.C. e.g. if one Mechanism is mentioned, all three should be.



The CSG supports having two questions:

1) Mechanism preference - decide on only one or two to send forward, or keep all three?

2) Send out for Public Comment, synthesize Comments into the Final report, then send to

SO/ACs and Board OR send to SO/ACs now [and presumably, after that, to the Board]





________________________________



Background Note: I see one section -- p 15 and again on p 17  that still need to be edited. Originally, there were two sections in the Final Report that seemingly promotes Mechanism B.As all are aware,  I questioned this and one  paragraph that had been accidentally left in from earlier drafts was removed. One remains: Page 15. The comment on p 17 is suggesting that much more work is needed to establish the external mechanism, versus Mechanism A and B. Some in the CCWG-AP believe that establishing a truly independent internal division at ICANN will require considerable work, as well, with both entry and exit strategies; safeguards; establishment of job descriptions; provision for Let's be extra careful and diligent to be unbiased in how the three mechanisms are described.  This is an example of the importance of being very neutral and factual in the Report, as whether it is the SO/ACs or a Public Comment period/then the SO/ACS,  as the next stage, these are very complex decisions.









II. Question regarding the phrase: "must directly serve ICANN's Mission", versus "be consistent with ICANN's Mission".





I believe that consistent with ICANN's Mission is sufficient.







III.  Final Amount of Auction Proceeds/number of years to disperse via any mechanism:  Not fully addressed in the DRAFT Report -- which for many in the community will be very confusing.



Right now, the DRAFT report states  that the amount of Auction Funds is $233.5, with 3 contention sets yet to be determined.  What is not mentioned is what is happening to the interest accued over the past few years on the $233.5 million, or if that total is inclusive of the interest.  This information should be included in the DRAFT report, at least in an ANNEX.







V. Use of Auction Funds for any further contribution to ICANN Reserve Fund, versus ICANN overall budget:

Clarification may be needed regarding maintaining the integrity of keeping the Auction Funds separate from contributions to the ICANN Operating Budget.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190913/14eb2074/attachment.html>