From: "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as> Date: Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 21:21 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Greetings Katrina, Whilst the CCWG has no doubt spent considerable sums on their quest to a final report and recommendation to the Community, rest assured that the auction proceeds are safely tucked away in conservative investment vehicles, although no doubt they have suffered some decline in the preceding couple of months, given the COVID-19 crisis. I trust that Xavier has been taking good care of it all, to the best of his and his advisor’s abilities. Expenses for the CCWG were budgeted in the year to year ICANN budgets. I shudder at the amounts involved however. (Trust me, I worry about ICANN expenses for my WG as well). To answer your first question, I cannot recall now where the discussion went with regards to cost/benefit ratios regarding the three options. I apologize for that. With regards to your second question… I think the way to look at the three proposals is to assess them with regards to your (as Councillors) trust in ICANN. I’ve been interacting with ICANN since it’s inception. The early years were not good, to say the least, and left me with a long standing serious distrust of ICANN on every level. Ten years ago I still had a serious mistrust of the organization. Things began to change with the regular meetings between the ccNSO WG (now SOPC) and ICANN financial at our face to face meetings (and we all owe a huge thanks to Giovanni for his continued leadership here). It took a few years to get through the lingering BS and establish regular, consistent, and understandable reporting from ICANN finance back to our Community. We were leaders amongst the SO/AC’s in demanding this from ICANN org, and we as the ccNSO should take credit for that. My current perception of ICANN, with the ascension of Göran as President and CEO, and Xavier as CFO, is a sea change from the preceding 17 years of my experience with the organization. In my view they have performed admirably and understand the balance between ICANN org and the Empowered Community. Ditto for the current Board of Directors. They seem to “get it” as well. That being said, I believe that Mechanism A is the preferred mechanism. I also believe it’s the cheapest approach. However, I remind my fellow Councillors that their approach to this decision is up to them. Judge your personal comfort level with ICANN, and convey your thoughts to me, either on the list or privately. Best Regards, /Stephen From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 08:57 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> 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: 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 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.