[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020

[Erika Mann]

Dear Robert -

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
rather than agreeing or disagreeing.  This may well enable the group to
claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should
not be listed as one of the supporting organizations.

We will proceed accordingly.

Kind regards,
Erika

Erika Mann
erika at erikamann.com
+32 498 121354

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:50 PM Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
wrote:

> Dear Erika,
>
> What the SSAC has said is that it does not object to any of the
> recommendations.  This is subtly different to saying that the SSAC
> supports the recommendations.
>
> Specifically, the SSAC does not wish to delay the process within the
> CCWG further and wishes to see the report finalized and delivered.
> Further deliberation within the CCWG is unlikely to be good use of
> everyone’s time and energy.  Rather, what the SSAC recommended in its
> response was:
>
> “... to have an outside expert with a demonstrated track-record in
> designing funding programs review the report, comment on its finding and
> recommendations, and use it as a basis to inform the Board on the design
> of a grant making process for the auction proceeds that implements grant
> making best practices. This step should be undertaken before the Board
> formally considers the CCWG’s Final Report as its advice would assist
> the Board in its consideration of the CCWG recommendations."
>
> As Emily stated in her email below ”As a reminder to the group,
> "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but
> most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of
> reference as feedback in received on the list.
>
> In this context, the SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral
> rather than agreeing or disagreeing.  This may well enable the group to
> claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should
> not be listed as one of the supporting organizations.
>
>
> regards,
>
> Robert
>
>
> --
> Robert Guerra
> Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>
> On 24 May 2020, at 7:38, Erika Mann wrote:
>
> >     Dear Robert,
> >
> >     Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you
> > kindly
> > provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG?
> > Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus
> > designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about
> > recommendation 1
> > that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later
> > than
> > Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag?
> >
> > I hope all is well with you and your family!
> >
> >     Kind regards,
> >     Erika
> >
> > Erika Mann
> > Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling
> > +32 498 121354
> >
> >
> >             On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas"
> > <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >                 Hi John,
> >
> >                 Thanks for your reply.
> >
> >                 Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed
> > Final
> > Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not
> > object to
> > any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is
> > unfortunate
> > that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to
> > the
> > exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the
> > finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so
> > that the
> > work of the CCWG can be concluded."
> >
> >                 Would it be possible to provide additional detail
> > about
> > SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately
> > clear
> > how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated
> > above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the
> > SSAC
> > more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in
> > advance for any additional clarification you can provide.
> >
> >                 As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a
> > position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The
> > Co-Chairs
> > will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in
> > received on
> > the list.
> >
> >                 Kind regards,
> >                 Emily
> >
> >
> >                 On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine"
> > <johnl at iecc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >                     > CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that
> > the
> > Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of
> > auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference
> > expressed by
> > CCWG members for mechanism A.
> >
> >                     The SSAC does not agree with this.  You can send
> > the
> > report, but you do not have consensus.
> >
> >                     Regards,
> >                     John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator
> > of
> > "The Internet for Dummies",
> >                     Please consider the environment before reading
> > this
> > e-mail.
> >
> 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=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20200527/6bfe9e4e/attachment.html>