[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020]

Thu May 7 18:29:27 UTC 2020

I agree with Anne  that the wording of "strong preference" gives an
incorrect message of the actual result where 7 voted for #1 and 7 voted
against it.  This wording should be amended.

As Judith points out, At-Large's selection of Mechanism A was related to
the condition that the independent panel was already incorporated into all
the mechanisms.

Maureen

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> Erika et al,
>
> Many thanks for your work and the ICANN staff work in finalizing this
> report.
>
>
>
> *Consensus Level and Possible Need for Minority Statement*
>
>
>
> Given that a total of 7 members voted for a Mechanism other than A (split
> votes between B and C), I would say the appropriate level of consensus is
> actually Rough Consensus.  Seven Member votes for Mechanisms B and C
> combined does not mean that the WG indicated a “strong preference” for
> Mechanism A.  This is because those voting for Mechanisms B and C were
> motivated by a concern for more independence from ICANN org in the
> administrative process.  In short, there were 7 votes for Mechanism A and 7
> votes for Mechanisms more independent than A.
>
>
>
> In addition, one conclusion in the report will need to be considered as
> requiring a Minority Statement.  The text in question from Section 4 is as
> follows:
>
>
>
> Considering the responses from participants did not significantly change
> the direction provided by the CCWG members as one participant indicated
> their preference for mechanism A and three participants indicated their
> preference for mechanism B.
>
>
>
> Adding together the votes of the Participants to those of the Members, the
> number in favor of  Mechanism A is 8 and the number in favor of Mechanism B
> is 7.  This count demonstrates that among all those answering the poll,
> there is clearly NOT a “strong preference” in those participating for
> Mechanism A over Mechanism B.   So the statement above is not quite
> accurate.
>
>
>
> I understand that Minority Statements are due by May 28 and I will review
> this with the CSG.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Erika Mann
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:41 AM
> *To:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Ching Chiao <ching.chiao at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG
> today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020]
>
>
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms.
> Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see
> poll results in excel format here
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%20Proceeds%20-%20Final%20Survey%20on%20Mechanisms%20-%20Summary.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1588328283000&api=v2>).
> With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong
> support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of
> members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section
> 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this
> result.
>
>
>
> Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision
> circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete.
> The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of
> the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter
> <https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details,
> an excerpt of which is included below). *We believe that the CCWG
> supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is
> defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.”
> If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation,
> please respond to the email list no later than **21 May at 23:59 UTC (14
> days from today).*
>
>
>
> *Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of
> the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific
> recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the
> consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority
> viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, **you may do so, but
> this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due
> 28 May at 23:59 UTC (21 days from today). Minority statements may be
> included in an annex to the Final Report or linked from the Final Report to
> the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received.*
>
>
>
> Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering
> Organizations with the Final Report. *If you have questions or comments
> on this draft letter, please send to the* *email list no later than **21
> May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today).*
>
>
>
> We hope you are all well, take good care and,
>
> kind regards,
>
>
>
> Erika and Ching
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation:*
>
>
>
> *In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall
> seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If
> making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve
> all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if
> applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each
> position as having one of the following designations:*
>
>
>
> *a)* *       Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
> identified by an absence of objection*
>
> *b)* *       Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but
> most agree*
>
>
>
> *In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization
> appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be
> included in the report.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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/20200507/6a99e80c/attachment.html>