Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call
Hi Stephen, Thank you for the summary! As far as I understand, the CCWG AP has been discussing the possible way forward for several years now and have spent a large chunk of the money – is there any left at all? :) Could you please remind me which of the options was considered by the group as the cheapest and the easiest to implement? Are there any other pluses/minuses of each mechanism you believe should be considered by the Councillors? Thanks, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as> Date: Friday, 17 April 2020 at 08:35 To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Greetings, Following on my remarks on today’s teleconference Council call, here are the issues confronting the CCWG Auction Proceeds membership: First, there is the issue of whether the CCWG should recommend to the Board (via the SO/AC Community’s approval) a single Auction proceeds distribution mechanism, or multiple mechanisms. To recap, there are three Mechanisms on the table: Mechanism A: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization. Mechanism B: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit. Mechanism C: A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created which is functionally separate from ICANN org, which would be responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds. Second, there is the issue of solicitation of CCWG membership views with regards to the following approach to the CCWG’s report to the Board: The CCWG should recommend a single mechanism to the ICANN Board The CCWG should recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, leaving it up to the Board to make the final determination The CCWG should recommend all three remaining mechanisms to the ICANN Board And finally No strong view either way. To quote ICANN org CCWG staff with regards to this: As members serve as representatives of the Chartering Organizations, it is particularly important that all members respond to this poll. I do not wish to answer this poll without some input from you, my fellow Councilors. I realize that you have not been keeping yourselves up to speed on the deliberations of the CCWG; thank yourselves for that. I do need your input on how to proceed with respect to answering the survey on behalf of the ccNSO.
From the Final Report of the CCWG, I quote the following to you:
CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG will finalize this recommendation following its review of public comments and a formal consensus call, but based on the indicative poll results, the CCWG leadership sees a strong direction in favor of mechanism A (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization), followed by mechanism B (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit organization). However, the CCWG leadership notes that a number of members did not participate in the indicative survey so it is possible that the outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, consideration of input received and consultations by the members with their respective appointing organizations. Based on the indicative survey results, the CCWG is expected to recommend that the Board selects a mechanism from the two ultimately top ranked mechanisms by the CCWG, for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As part of its selection process, the ICANN Board is expected to apply the criteria outlined by the CCWG in section 4.5 of this proposed Final Report for which additional internal and/or external input may be required (such as providing a reliable cost estimate). The ICANN Board is expected to share the outcome of its consideration with the CCWG Chartering Organizations and, if deemed necessary, involve the Chartering Organizations and/or CCWG implementation team in any deliberations that would benefit from Chartering Organization and/or CCWG implementation team input. So things remain in flux with respect to what the CCWG will recommend to the Board. This poll is the last opportunity to influence the language of the CCWG’s recommendation to the Board. I do not want to substitute my own views on these two questions in lieu of input from you. As I noted on the call, the deadline for submitting a response is Friday, 24 April. I would therefore appreciate (on the list) any comments that you have about the matters discussed here no later than the end of the day your time, Thursday, 23 April. Thank you in advance for your input to my decision making process. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake .as (American Samoa) Stay safe! Stay healthy! _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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.
Yes thanks Stephen – another obvious issue for me is whether Covid changes any or all of this? I mean if ICANN ever needed a proper contingency $$$ sum held in reserve then now would be the time to have it, and to instead press on with distribution based on assumptions from back in 2014 or whenever just seems nuts. From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:57 PM To: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as>; ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Hi Stephen, Thank you for the summary! As far as I understand, the CCWG AP has been discussing the possible way forward for several years now and have spent a large chunk of the money – is there any left at all? :) Could you please remind me which of the options was considered by the group as the cheapest and the easiest to implement? Are there any other pluses/minuses of each mechanism you believe should be considered by the Councillors? Thanks, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> Date: Friday, 17 April 2020 at 08:35 To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Greetings, Following on my remarks on today’s teleconference Council call, here are the issues confronting the CCWG Auction Proceeds membership: First, there is the issue of whether the CCWG should recommend to the Board (via the SO/AC Community’s approval) a single Auction proceeds distribution mechanism, or multiple mechanisms. To recap, there are three Mechanisms on the table: 1. Mechanism A: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization. 2. Mechanism B: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit. 3. Mechanism C: A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created which is functionally separate from ICANN org, which would be responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds. Second, there is the issue of solicitation of CCWG membership views with regards to the following approach to the CCWG’s report to the Board: 1. The CCWG should recommend a single mechanism to the ICANN Board 2. The CCWG should recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, leaving it up to the Board to make the final determination 3. The CCWG should recommend all three remaining mechanisms to the ICANN Board And finally 1. No strong view either way. To quote ICANN org CCWG staff with regards to this: As members serve as representatives of the Chartering Organizations, it is particularly important that all members respond to this poll. I do not wish to answer this poll without some input from you, my fellow Councilors. I realize that you have not been keeping yourselves up to speed on the deliberations of the CCWG; thank yourselves for that. I do need your input on how to proceed with respect to answering the survey on behalf of the ccNSO. From the Final Report of the CCWG, I quote the following to you: CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG will finalize this recommendation following its review of public comments and a formal consensus call, but based on the indicative poll results, the CCWG leadership sees a strong direction in favor of mechanism A (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization), followed by mechanism B (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit organization). However, the CCWG leadership notes that a number of members did not participate in the indicative survey so it is possible that the outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, consideration of input received and consultations by the members with their respective appointing organizations. Based on the indicative survey results, the CCWG is expected to recommend that the Board selects a mechanism from the two ultimately top ranked mechanisms by the CCWG, for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As part of its selection process, the ICANN Board is expected to apply the criteria outlined by the CCWG in section 4.5 of this proposed Final Report for which additional internal and/or external input may be required (such as providing a reliable cost estimate). The ICANN Board is expected to share the outcome of its consideration with the CCWG Chartering Organizations and, if deemed necessary, involve the Chartering Organizations and/or CCWG implementation team in any deliberations that would benefit from Chartering Organization and/or CCWG implementation team input. So things remain in flux with respect to what the CCWG will recommend to the Board. This poll is the last opportunity to influence the language of the CCWG’s recommendation to the Board. I do not want to substitute my own views on these two questions in lieu of input from you. As I noted on the call, the deadline for submitting a response is Friday, 24 April. I would therefore appreciate (on the list) any comments that you have about the matters discussed here no later than the end of the day your time, Thursday, 23 April. Thank you in advance for your input to my decision making process. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake .as (American Samoa) Stay safe! Stay healthy! _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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.
Greetings Nick, You have hit on the core issue. I have been banging the drum on this for some time now, including an appearance at a Board public forum a few ICANN meetings ago (I cannot remember which) where I stated directly that they should put ALL the auction proceeds into the reserve fund. As I recall, the grand compromise was to take “some” from the auction proceeds, and fund the rest over “X” years from the ICANN budget. For the record, my view is straightforward: ICANN should keep it all as a reserve, particularly in this crazy economic time resulting from COVID-19. Thank you for raising this concern on the Council list. It’s serious business… Best Regards, /Stephen From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Yes thanks Stephen – another obvious issue for me is whether Covid changes any or all of this? I mean if ICANN ever needed a proper contingency $$$ sum held in reserve then now would be the time to have it, and to instead press on with distribution based on assumptions from back in 2014 or whenever just seems nuts. [snip]
HI all I take the opposite view. ICANN could, if it had to deal with such a situation, do its work with a far smaller staff complement and funding base than it does, and if it were ever in a situation of needing to 'shut down', its existing reserve funds are *more* than adequate to the task. If domain name registrations suddenly fall precipitously, we are not all going to be able to carry on as usual. There is a moral hazard to ICANN having a too-big reserve. It means it is insulated from those market pressures. I don't think that is good for ICANN or for the Internet. To be clear, the situation I am talking about is if something fundamental changes. I'm not saying today's ICANN with today's market characteristics is the right or wrong size. My point only is that in extremis it could be run much more tightly, and I would prefer that, to oceans of money sitting on the balance sheet in perpetuity. cheers Jordan On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:39, Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Greetings Nick,
You have hit on the core issue. I have been banging the drum on this for some time now, including an appearance at a Board public forum a few ICANN meetings ago (I cannot remember which) where I stated directly that they should put ALL the auction proceeds into the reserve fund. As I recall, the grand compromise was to take “some” from the auction proceeds, and fund the rest over “X” years from the ICANN budget.
For the record, my view is straightforward: ICANN should keep it all as a reserve, particularly in this crazy economic time resulting from COVID-19.
Thank you for raising this concern on the Council list. It’s serious business…
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From: *Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> *Date: *Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:27 *To: *Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" < sdeerhake@nic.as>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call
Yes thanks Stephen – another obvious issue for me is whether Covid changes any or all of this? I mean if ICANN ever needed a proper contingency $$$ sum held in reserve then now would be the time to have it, and to instead press on with distribution based on assumptions from back in 2014 or whenever just seems nuts.
*[snip]* _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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.
-- *Jordan Carter* Group Chief Executive *InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa* Helping New Zealanders harness the power of the Internet www.internetnz.nz *M* +64 21 442 649 *O* +64 4 555 0123 [image: InternetNZ]
Excellent! Let the debate begin! Best Regards, /Stephen From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 21:52 To: "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call HI all I take the opposite view. ICANN could, if it had to deal with such a situation, do its work with a far smaller staff complement and funding base than it does, and if it were ever in a situation of needing to 'shut down', its existing reserve funds are *more* than adequate to the task. If domain name registrations suddenly fall precipitously, we are not all going to be able to carry on as usual. There is a moral hazard to ICANN having a too-big reserve. It means it is insulated from those market pressures. I don't think that is good for ICANN or for the Internet. To be clear, the situation I am talking about is if something fundamental changes. I'm not saying today's ICANN with today's market characteristics is the right or wrong size. My point only is that in extremis it could be run much more tightly, and I would prefer that, to oceans of money sitting on the balance sheet in perpetuity. cheers Jordan On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:39, Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: Greetings Nick, You have hit on the core issue. I have been banging the drum on this for some time now, including an appearance at a Board public forum a few ICANN meetings ago (I cannot remember which) where I stated directly that they should put ALL the auction proceeds into the reserve fund. As I recall, the grand compromise was to take “some” from the auction proceeds, and fund the rest over “X” years from the ICANN budget. For the record, my view is straightforward: ICANN should keep it all as a reserve, particularly in this crazy economic time resulting from COVID-19. Thank you for raising this concern on the Council list. It’s serious business… Best Regards, /Stephen From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Yes thanks Stephen – another obvious issue for me is whether Covid changes any or all of this? I mean if ICANN ever needed a proper contingency $$$ sum held in reserve then now would be the time to have it, and to instead press on with distribution based on assumptions from back in 2014 or whenever just seems nuts. [snip] _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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. -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa Helping New Zealanders harness the power of the Internet www.internetnz.nz<https://www.internetnz.nz> M +64 21 442 649 O +64 4 555 0123 [InternetNZ]
Hi Jordan, All, I fully agree with Jordan’s thoughts and approach. Best, Giovanni [cid:image002.jpg@01D616F0.765C7060]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager EURid vzw Telecomlaan 9, 1831 Diegem, Belgium T: +32 2 401 27 50 | M: +39 335 8141733 www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> RPR Brussel – VAT BE 0864.240.405 [cid:image003.jpg@01D4F6BF.C28BB830]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image004.jpg@01D4F6BF.C28BB830] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image005.jpg@01D4F6BF.C28BB830] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> [signature] From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 20 April 2020 03:52 To: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call HI all I take the opposite view. ICANN could, if it had to deal with such a situation, do its work with a far smaller staff complement and funding base than it does, and if it were ever in a situation of needing to 'shut down', its existing reserve funds are *more* than adequate to the task. If domain name registrations suddenly fall precipitously, we are not all going to be able to carry on as usual. There is a moral hazard to ICANN having a too-big reserve. It means it is insulated from those market pressures. I don't think that is good for ICANN or for the Internet. To be clear, the situation I am talking about is if something fundamental changes. I'm not saying today's ICANN with today's market characteristics is the right or wrong size. My point only is that in extremis it could be run much more tightly, and I would prefer that, to oceans of money sitting on the balance sheet in perpetuity. cheers Jordan On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:39, Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: Greetings Nick, You have hit on the core issue. I have been banging the drum on this for some time now, including an appearance at a Board public forum a few ICANN meetings ago (I cannot remember which) where I stated directly that they should put ALL the auction proceeds into the reserve fund. As I recall, the grand compromise was to take “some” from the auction proceeds, and fund the rest over “X” years from the ICANN budget. For the record, my view is straightforward: ICANN should keep it all as a reserve, particularly in this crazy economic time resulting from COVID-19. Thank you for raising this concern on the Council list. It’s serious business… Best Regards, /Stephen From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Yes thanks Stephen – another obvious issue for me is whether Covid changes any or all of this? I mean if ICANN ever needed a proper contingency $$$ sum held in reserve then now would be the time to have it, and to instead press on with distribution based on assumptions from back in 2014 or whenever just seems nuts. [snip] _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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. -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa Helping New Zealanders harness the power of the Internet www.internetnz.nz<https://www.internetnz.nz> M +64 21 442 649 O +64 4 555 0123 [InternetNZ] Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy
participants (5)
-
Giovanni Seppia -
Jordan Carter -
Katrina Sataki -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC