<div dir="ltr">Dear Robert - <div><br></div><div>Thank you for clarifying SSAC position, summarized at the end of your email clearly in stating: "SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral</div>rather than agreeing or disagreeing. This may well enable the group to claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should<br>not be listed as one of the supporting organizations.<br><div><br></div><div>We will proceed accordingly. </div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>Erika </div><div><br></div><div>Erika Mann</div><div><a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">erika@erikamann.com</a></div><div>+32 498 121354 <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:50 PM Robert Guerra <<a href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org">rguerra@privaterra.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Erika,<br>
<br>
What the SSAC has said is that it does not object to any of the <br>
recommendations. This is subtly different to saying that the SSAC <br>
supports the recommendations.<br>
<br>
Specifically, the SSAC does not wish to delay the process within the <br>
CCWG further and wishes to see the report finalized and delivered. <br>
Further deliberation within the CCWG is unlikely to be good use of <br>
everyone’s time and energy. Rather, what the SSAC recommended in its <br>
response was:<br>
<br>
“... to have an outside expert with a demonstrated track-record in <br>
designing funding programs review the report, comment on its finding and <br>
recommendations, and use it as a basis to inform the Board on the design <br>
of a grant making process for the auction proceeds that implements grant <br>
making best practices. This step should be undertaken before the Board <br>
formally considers the CCWG’s Final Report as its advice would assist <br>
the Board in its consideration of the CCWG recommendations."<br>
<br>
As Emily stated in her email below ”As a reminder to the group, <br>
"consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but <br>
most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of <br>
reference as feedback in received on the list.<br>
<br>
In this context, the SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral <br>
rather than agreeing or disagreeing. This may well enable the group to <br>
claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should <br>
not be listed as one of the supporting organizations.<br>
<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Robert Guerra<br>
Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377<br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/netfreedom" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">twitter.com/netfreedom</a><br>
Email: <a href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org" target="_blank">rguerra@privaterra.org</a><br>
<br>
On 24 May 2020, at 7:38, Erika Mann wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear Robert,<br>
><br>
> Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you <br>
> kindly<br>
> provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG?<br>
> Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus<br>
> designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about <br>
> recommendation 1<br>
> that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later <br>
> than<br>
> Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag?<br>
><br>
> I hope all is well with you and your family!<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
> Erika<br>
><br>
> Erika Mann<br>
> Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling<br>
> +32 498 121354<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas" <br>
> <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi John,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for your reply.<br>
><br>
> Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed <br>
> Final<br>
> Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not <br>
> object to<br>
> any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is <br>
> unfortunate<br>
> that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to <br>
> the<br>
> exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the<br>
> finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so <br>
> that the<br>
> work of the CCWG can be concluded."<br>
><br>
> Would it be possible to provide additional detail <br>
> about<br>
> SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately <br>
> clear<br>
> how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated<br>
> above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the <br>
> SSAC<br>
> more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in<br>
> advance for any additional clarification you can provide.<br>
><br>
> As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a<br>
> position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The <br>
> Co-Chairs<br>
> will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in <br>
> received on<br>
> the list.<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
> Emily<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <br>
> <<a href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com" target="_blank">johnl@iecc.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that <br>
> the<br>
> Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of<br>
> auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference <br>
> expressed by<br>
> CCWG members for mechanism A.<br>
><br>
> The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send <br>
> the<br>
> report, but you do not have consensus.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> John Levine, <a href="mailto:johnl@taugh.com" target="_blank">johnl@taugh.com</a>, Primary Perpetrator <br>
> of<br>
> "The Internet for Dummies",<br>
> Please consider the environment before reading <br>
> this<br>
> e-mail.<br>
> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=DYqM39OYmmSKV1zoWGbL6VAt1PiI-CaMFOS4Rc1DtKI&s=98Fr2XBuapkpYg6zg1EZNIxwz_zLWJT9k8RUvbaNJP4&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=DYqM39OYmmSKV1zoWGbL6VAt1PiI-CaMFOS4Rc1DtKI&s=98Fr2XBuapkpYg6zg1EZNIxwz_zLWJT9k8RUvbaNJP4&e=</a><br>
</blockquote></div>