[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN

Thu Nov 21 20:00:14 UTC 2019

Anne - the first poll is insofar indicative as not everyone has found the
time to finalize the internal consultation process with their Chartering
Organization - and some may want to wait until all comments are reviewed
from the second Public Comment period. Insofar there will be sufficient
time before we will initiate a Consensus Call (after the second Public
Comment period.).

I noted that we will have to talk about these processes again in our next
call. We will put this item on our agenda.

I hope this clarifies your questions.

Kind regards,
Erika

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:47 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Emily.  If this is merely an “indicative poll” and does not
> constitute the view of the Chartering Organization (but rather our views as
> individual participants), I am struggling to understand how the CCWG will
> properly consider public comment.
>
>
>
> Public comment on the models will apparently be analyzed but I do not see
> in the timeline a point where the Chartering Organizations (apparently
> acting as the EC as Becky stated?) will be asked to express a vote as to
> what each one’s position is on the preferred Mechanism and how that view
> will be reflected in the Final Report.
>
>
>
> Naturally representatives of Chartering Organizations will need time to
> analyze public comment, submit the considerations to their CO membership
> and have it discussed.  Presumably the Report should not be finalized until
> after the Chartering Organizations have weighed in, so that the Final
> Report may include the preferred Mechanism choice of each of the Chartering
> Organizations.  Otherwise, it’s unclear how Chartering Organizations could
> vote to approve the Final Report if each Chartering Organization’s
> preferred mechanism is not contained in the Final Report.
>
>
>
> Can you please clarify?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:36 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Sam Lanfranco <
> sam at lanfranco.net>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
> Internal Department at ICANN
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi Anne,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the multiple messages, but I wanted to share one additional
> point of clarification. The upcoming poll is what we are calling an
> “indicative” poll. It is not necessary to consult with your groups to
> respond to this poll. You can respond from your own perspective based on
> the discussions to date and your own analysis. The results of the
> indicative poll will be tested during the public comment period where
> SO/ACs and SG/Cs will have an opportunity to respond to the recommendations
> in the report and members can ensure at that point with their groups that
> they are aligned.
>
>
>
> I hope this clarification is helpful.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 19:28
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, Sam Lanfranco <
> sam at lanfranco.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <
> ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
> Internal Department at ICANN
>
>
>
> For reference, the timeline discussed at ICANN66 is attached.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 19:25
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, Sam Lanfranco <
> sam at lanfranco.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <
> ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
> Internal Department at ICANN
>
>
>
> Hi Anne,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your question. Correct, during discussions in the face-to-face
> meeting, the CCWG agreed to hold the poll prior to the public comment
> period, so that it has the opportunity to refine recommendations about the
> preferred mechanism(s) before seeking public comment.
>
>
>
> We expect to be able to share the updated report tomorrow based on the
> most recent comments received and also open the poll tomorrow. The poll
> will close on Tuesday 3 December. The report will then be updated based on
> poll results and put out for public comment. The CCWG will have an
> opportunity to finalize the contents of the report (including
> recommendations) after it considers input received through public comment.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 19:17
> *To: *Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org"
> <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
> Internal Department at ICANN
>
>
>
> Thank you Sam.  I agree with your observations, but my understanding is
> that the survey of Chartering Organizations comes before  the public
> comment is received.  So I am asking these questions in relation to
> analysis I need to provide to the CSG.
>
> Does the survey precede the receipt and analysis of public comment and is
> that the right way to go?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2019 5:56 PM
> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>; Becky Burr <
> becky.burr at board.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A -
> Internal Department at ICANN
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I would like to highlight several things that Anne has mentioned. We are
> of course all in support of accountability, minimizing the risk of disputes
> in the management of the auction proceeds, and support that costs should be
> managed prudently. Those apply to whatever Mechanism is finally selected.
>
>
>
> As for the “many trade-offs” as between Mechanisms A, B, and C, those that
> raise or lower the desirability of individual Mechanisms are pretty much
> independent of how we sort out the accountability and risk management
> issues. The Mechanism properties and the associated “trade-offs” are likely
> to be thoroughly aired in the public comment period for the Final Report.
> Bits and pieces of those trade-offs have been raised in the work of the
> group, but now, in the comment period, is the time to get more specific and
> explicit about the strengths and weaknesses of the three options.
>
>
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
> On 11/19/2019 7:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> Hi Alan.   I apologize  - the 3/4 vote required to amend Fundamental
> ByLaws is for 3/4 of the Board of Directors.  The approval of the EC is
> listed in Annex D to the ByLaws and apparently requires approval of three
> EC Decisional Participants as well as the condition that the ByLaws
> amendment is “(B) not objected to by more than one Decisional
> Participant.”   Annex D Section 1.4 (b) (i).  So if two Decisional
> Participants object, we are back to “square one” as you say.  And that
> makes the survey very important.
>
>
>
> To clarify,  I don’t think anyone is trying to escape Accountability.
> Everyone agrees that grants shouldn’t be subject to being revoked and that
> ICANN should minimize the risk of adverse action (disputes) in relation to
> its management of Auction Proceeds.   Everyone also agrees that costs
> should be managed prudently.
>
>
>
> You may think that keeping grant-making inside the ICANN organization is
> equally safe in the above respects for ICANN, its Board of Directors, and
> all grant recipients.   ALAC may want to support Mechanism A if, in fact,
> it is the lowest initial investment, for that reason alone.  However, I
> don’t think the Proposed Final Report makes it clear which is the lowest
> cost alternative in the long run.  20 new ICANN employees with benefits
> would be expensive and I would assume they would have to be compensated
> from Auction Proceeds monies.  It’s likely easier to “Sunset” Mechanism B
> so you don’t have to fire 20 people.  Mechanism C would provide incentives
> for other organizations and foundations to make additional contributions to
> an ICANN charitable foundation so there are many trade-offs. I’m sure the
> CCWG must have discussed these trade-offs over many sessions.
>
>
>
> The risk management issue doesn’t seem nearly as obvious to me as it does
> to you, but many thanks for engaging in the discussion in a way that helps
> us all clarify the considerations in advance of issuing the Proposed
> Initial Report and conducting the survey.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>     <rest deleted>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191121/120867e3/attachment-0001.html>