November 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms
by Sam Lanfranco Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

John, I fear that you have misunderstood and jumped to conclusions here. I have no idea how the current negotiations around the .org registry will play out, and of course under no circumstances would it, or any new gTLD registry rest with ICANN. If there is an unspoken assumption here, it is that if (IF) there were a new non-profit gTLD registry, it would likely use profits for the ways envisioned for the Mechanisms. much the way ISOC has with PIR. It was presented as a "/What if/..." food for thought, and not a "/Somebody should/..." suggestion. Sorry that was not clear enough. Sam Lanfranco On 11/27/2019 5:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> However, whatever new gTLD auction proceeds Mechanism materializes, >> it involves building capacity to administer a grant making process. >> It is worth noting that if the .org registry needed a new home or >> especially if a new public interest gTLD were to be created, an >> option would be to create the registry out of the selected Mechanism, >> an entity that would have considerable expertise and hit the ground >> running. > > I am a trustee of the Internet Society and I find this comment to be > totally out of line. > > ICANN cannot own a registry (other than the tiny and ancient .INT) and > the process of running a registry has nothing in common with > evaluating and giving grants. In the unlikely event that the .org > sale doesn't complete, the .org registry will still belong to ISOC as > it does now. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam(a)lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

2 6

Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

On the topics of "Accountability" and "Best Practices", has anyone looked at whether the grant-making function placed inside an internal department of ICANN would be subject to review under the Empowered Community Accountablity rules? On page 10 of the current draft, there is a bullet point called "On-going costs only in Mechanism A - Management and support of ICANN's accountability mechanisms triggered by the grant distribution activity (if any.)" In terms of risk assessment, I really can't see the grant-making process being subject to the Empowered Community accountability procedures. On the other hand, I don't know that the EC will readily accept amending the ByLaws for purposes of getting the grant-making outside the EC process. This is especially true in that all the Accountability work was done in CCWGs in two lengthy work-streams. I apologize if this was previously discussed by the CCWG - doing my best to catch up. If we think that the ByLaws would need to be amended not only to remove the availability of the Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and the Independent Review Panel (IRP), but also to be amended to state that the power given to the Empowered Community does not apply to such grant-making, then we should say so in the Proposed Final Report. Has legal advice been provided as to whether the formation of an independent foundation might avoid the need to amend the ICANN ByLaws with respect to IRP, RFR, and Empowered Community provisions? Thank you, Anne [cid:image002.png@01D59BDA.42F5F9D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D59BDB.ED85F520] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image006.jpg@01D59BDB.ED85F520] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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.

12 47

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

Hi John - just a note that I have personally set up a captive foundation such as the one in Mechanism C. (But I am a new member so no reason you would know that.) Separately, I certainly don't consider the relative costs of the three mechanisms as a matter of "implementation weeds" and apparently neither does ICANN since they place so much emphasis on the additional costs associated with setting up a foundation in their comments shown on pages 9 and 10 of the Proposed Final Report. I have just been trying to get up to speed with the available information in order to be able to fill out the survey on ranking the mechanisms. Setting up a foundation is relatively easy and is a one-time cost. Onboarding and training personnel may be a one-time cost (probably equal in A and C) but it is quite expensive and not easy to "Sunset". Hence, my question about market rates for Mechanism B - not at all a matter of being in the "weeds". However, I don't know if fees in the current marketplace for Mechanism B services would be comparable and it appears we don't have hard data on that. Regardless of your opinion re qualifications to rank mechanisms, we all have a survey to complete before December 3. Cheers, Anne -----Original Message----- From: John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:48 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] > Thanks Alan. As I see it, onboarding and training are pretty big > costs and that is why I was interested to know the estimated fees for > Mechanism B. Are we saying the CCWG has not actually developed any > fee quotes for Mechanism B at this stage? I should hope not. That's way down in the implementation weeds. Personally, I haven't seen evidence that the CCWG has the experience or expertise to recommend a corporate form (keeping in mind that I think I am the only person here who has actually set up a captive foundation like the one in Mechanism C) and we should stick to design criteria like separation of function between the people evaluating proposals and people handing out the money. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ________________________________ 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.

3 4

Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
by Emily Barabas Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

Dear all, Please find attached the latest revision of the proposed Final Report. This version incorporates input received over the mailing list since 8 November. It also includes some suggested edits from the leadership team intended to improve clarity and consistency of the text in certain sections. If you have concerns about any of the suggested edits, please respond on the mailing list by Tuesday 3 December. As agreed by the CCWG during the face-to-face session at ICANN66, the next step is to open the indicative poll on possible mechanisms for allocation of auction proceeds. You can access the poll here: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=1db40f7xlo0xj. Members and participants are both encouraged to complete the poll. As a reminder, it is not necessary to consult with your groups to respond to this poll. You can respond from your own perspective based on the CCWG discussions to date and your own analysis. The results of the indicative poll will be used to finalize content on the recommended mechanism(s) in the proposed Final Report. During the public comment period on the proposed Final Report, SO/ACs and SG/Cs will have an opportunity to respond to the recommendations in the report and members can ensure at that point that they are aligned with their groups. The deadline for completing the indicative poll is 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 3 December. An outline of the timeline for next steps is attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

6 15

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN
by Xavier J. Calvez Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

Anne, Thank you. The comment of the report that you are pointing to is a question about the differences between mechanisms A and C. The question asked by the CCWG indicated to assume that both mechanisms would require 20 people. The response suggests to remove that assumption because the number of people required is likely to be one of the differences between the 2 mechanisms. However, there has been no estimate produced so far of resource requirements for any of the mechanisms. Only key potential differences between the 2 mechanisms A and C have been offered. Regarding your comments on utilization of people: * There are currently no one under-utilized at ICANN. Could be considered good (ie we don’t have idle resources and are not wasting money), or bad (ie we have no flexibility in the organization and we risk to stretch some of our employees). * If we would identify existing employees who we would want to assign to the AP program because of their expertise, there current tasks would need to be reallocated. * Not all activities driven by the program will require incremental resources: that is one of the advantages of leveraging ICANN’s organization in mechanisms A and B. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez SVP & Chief Financial Officer ICANN P: +1 (310) 301-5838 (Direct) | M: +1 (805) 312-0052 E: xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Ste 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094 From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 10:38 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN Thanks Xavier. Perhaps you can clarify the Proposed Final Report reference in relation to 20 staff members from page 9: “At the request of the CCWG, ICANN org did already provide input on the relative costs of staffing associated with mechanisms A and C noting that:…. “The question suggests to describe differences assuming that 20 people would be needed in both mechanisms.” I think the comments go on to say that ICANN org believes that the number of staff needed among the mechanisms is in fact different. Given that personnel cost is often the largest cost associated with mounting an activity of this type, could you be somewhat more specific regarding the personnel cost analysis previously provided to the CCWG? Does the CCWG in fact already have the comparative estimated cost of personnel (staffing up and benefits) in each of the Mechanisms? To the extent that ICANN org may be proposing assigning additional duties to persons already employed by ICANN, are we saying there are people on ICANN staff who, in addition to having grant administration experience, are currently lacking enough work to fill a full time job? Again, many thanks for helping me get up to speed in relation to the upcoming survey and the need to communicate comparisons to the CSG as a Chartering Organization. Thank you, Anne From: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 12:50 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; erika(a)erikamann.com; Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, There are references in this email thread about ICANN org hiring and firing 20 people under mechanism A. I am not sure where the idea of ICANN org hiring 20 people come from nor how it was determined. ICANN org has not produced any evaluation of incremental resource requirements driven by any mechanism at this stage. While ICANN org may require to add skillset (insistance on “may”) and is likely to need more resources to address the auction proceeds distribution process, under any mechanism, we have not produced any analysis about it at this stage. Such analysis is dependent on many factors, including the general level of workload of the organization during the expected period of disbursement. Generally, ICANN org, like most organizations, would address temporary work and activities with temporary resources, whichever form such temporary resources would take. In addition, under mechanism C, there is more likelihood that the resources in the foundation be made redundant as the distribution process winds down than in mechanism A. In mechanism A, the level of incremental resources would be less, and the likelihood of redundancy would be less as result, and also because resources not needed anymore could be reallocated within the organization as and if needed. Separately, regarding the point of risks and control: * Under Mechanism B and C, there are risk and costs associated with the complexity of operating a mechanism that involves one or several parties in addition to ICANN. Sam and I made these points several times over the past CCWG AP meetings. I am happy to elaborate further but the illustration used of the discussion of PTI is very helpful as the actual IANA functions are exactly the same before than after the creation of PTI, but the subcontracting of most of the IANA functions to PTI has created complexities that create risks that require more resources, associated with the governance around the IANA functions. * As a reminder to inform your discussions on mechanisms A,B and C, I am attaching a presentation provided to this group in June 2017, notably the slide #7, which describes that ICANN’s obligations to ensure the funds are adequately used are the same, irrespective of the number intermediate parties inserted between ICANN and the end user in the process. There is not less obligations for ICANN to ensure funds are adequately used in mechanism C but there is more risks and costs to ensure such funds are adequately used. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez SVP & Chief Financial Officer ICANN P: +1 (310) 301-5838 (Direct) | M: +1 (805) 312-0052 E: xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org> | www.icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Ste 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 8:37 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN At 19/11/2019 07:24 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 â€œ(B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.â€ Annex D Section 1.4 (b) (i). So if two Decisional Participants object, we are back to â€œsquare oneâ€ as you say. And that makes the survey very important. If these same decisional participants approve the entire report allowing it to go to the Board, it would be an interesting situation if they then refuse to support or even object to the Bylaw. To clarify, I donâ€™t think anyone is trying to escape Accountability. Everyone agrees that grants shouldnâ€™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. To be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of ALAC. In fact, the ALAC appointed members to this CCWG have tended to have differing opinions. However, I donâ€™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. Itâ€™s likely easier to â€œSunsetâ€ Mechanism B so you donâ€™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. Iâ€™m sure the CCWG must have discussed these trade-offs over many sessions. I am not sure we ever were aiming at lowest cost. There has always been strong preferences that in some cases were despite the costs. Alan The risk management issue doesnâ€™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 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>; Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ See embedded replies. At 19/11/2019 04:35 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Thanks Alan. ItÃ¢€™s thethe desire to set up a situation which readily achieves the necessary 3/4 EC approval of the ByLaws amendments that causes me to ask these clarifying questions re the exact nature of CCWG Consensus and making that clear in the Proposed Final Report. I'm not sure what you mean by "3/4". If memory serves me, the approval of a Fundamental Bylaw requires the active support of at least 3 of the 5 EC members and rejection by no more than 1 of the 5. In this case, I do not see an obstacle to approval, probably unanimous. Before we can get to that stage, this CCWG will go to the chartering organizations. That is the five EC Members plus the SSAC and RSSAC. I see real problems going forward to the Board if most of the chartering orgs do not approve it, so once it goes to the board for action, most or all of the EC members will have already given their support. If they do not do that, then I see the report coming back to us first, before it even gets to the Board. Regarding the mechanism to be chosen, there is something about the way PTI was set up (as further described by Samantha and as further set out in the ByLaws in Section 16) that looks very Ã¢€œcleanÃ¢€ to me in terms of clearlearly identifying recommended ByLaws changes as to the permitted Accountability challenges and those which will become inapplicable. As far as I can see, the only relation between PTI and the accountability measures is that the EC can object to the PTI budget, can object to ICANN trying to divest itself of PTI (in a variety of ways) and how ICANN handles recommendation to PTI reviews. The other EC actions all relate to things in ICANN proper. None of what we are talking about is an attempt to stop the EC from challenging how auction funds are handles on a global basis. The Bylaw change we are discussing is for how applicants can (or rather cannot) challenge. The EC will always have control over the auction process on a global scale because they always have the authority to remove the entire ICANN Board. We cannot (or rather will not) change that. In addition, I note that Accountability Work stream 2 implementation is not complete. So, for example, having worked actively on one of the Subgroups in Accountability Workstream 2, I have to ask how the Chartering Organizations may consider the CCWG recommendations in relation to the risk of challenges once the Work stream 2 Recommendations are finalized and implemented. Would there be, for example, an available challenge re violation of the ByLaws (as amended to implement Workstream 2) based on an alleged Human Rights violation by ICANN in the administration of the Auction Funds? It seems to me that if ICANN employs 20 additional staff as contemplated in Mechanism A, that risk is increased. (20 staff is assumed across all Mechanisms.) I see no impact regardless of mechanism. ICANN will be responsible to ensuring it meets its Bylaws whether the auction work is done by staff, or partially or entirely subcontracted. We cannot avoid obligations just by sub-contracting (otherwise everyone would subcontract everything and avoid all liabilities. I would be inclined to assess the risk as being lower where administration and grants are concentrated in an entity other than ICANN. In the case of Mechanism B, risk reduction would be due to the expert independent contractor relationship, though admittedly ICANN controls the RFP process and would be supplying some of the staff as well as adding the function to its budgeting and audit processes. In the case of Mechanism C, risk reduction would be due to the independent Board of Directors and independent staffing, as it is with PTI. I ALL mechanisms we will use an indep expert group to do the application assessment and decide on awards. PTI may have a Board, and that may alter legal liabilities, but ICANN has control over that Board and its budget and I do not believe the it can be isolated from PTI actions if it allows them to happen. If valid, these observations may bear on the draft Proposed Final Report at page 19, including MarikaÃ¢€™â„¢s request for further clarification [MK6] about what is meant by Ã¢€œa healthy degree of independenceÃ¢€ and what the CCWG hopes to achieve with that goal generally (and not just in relation to the possible establishment of a foundation.) I would say the goal of a Ã¢€œhealthy degree of independenceÃ¢€ is is controlling risk of expensive challenges to ICANN and its Board and to the Auction Proceeds per se. In other words, the greater distance ICANN maintains from the grant-making process, while still exercising its fiduciary oversight duties, the lower the risk to ICANN, its Board, and the funds. As I understand it ALL mechanisms will have independence of the grant making process. Period. Challenges will always be possible for potentially all sorts of reasons. The only challenges we can control are those from applicants. Of course risk reduction has to be balanced against costs. In this regard, it would be helpful to have some additional information. For example, how does headcount cost for 20 people to be hired in ICANN compare to the fees for hiring an expert pre-existing non-profit? Can a foundation be set up using ICANN in-house legal staff or must we go to outside counsel? (Here I am thinking about questions that will be asked by members of the CSG constituencies.) I will leave these to Sam and Xavier. Alan Anne From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:51 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>; Becky Burr < becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ I agree that we should make a simple statement that ICANN's accountability measures cannot be used in relation to Auction Proceeds grant requests (regardless of who might file them). This has nothing to do with the approval of annual budgets. If the EC decides that the tranch allocated in the budget is not appropriate, it can still take action under its powers. We are proposing nothing related to the powers of the EC itself. I presume the Board will ultimately approve whatever it approves contingent on the Fundamental Bylaw change being approved by the EC. If the EC does not approve it, we are back to square one (or somewhere, but do not have an Auction Proceeds plan that is workable). If there are auction proceeds from further rounds, AND the ICANN Board decides they go into te same post as we have now, fine. If there are no auction proceeds or if they are designated for something else. fine. Regarding Bylaws 25.4, note that the lead-in words are "for avoidance of doubt". The earlier section of 25 explicitly call out the process which is led by the Board. We have already approved a fundamental Bylaw change and the process is understood (I speak as a former member of the EC Administration). Alan At 19/11/2019 01:31 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Erika, Becky, et al, Proposed Final Report and Consensus I believe there was CCWG consensus regarding the need for a Fundamental ByLaws change as to the unavailability of Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Panel (IRP) in relation to applicants vis-ÃƒÆ’ -vis the grant-making process. Here, the CCWG makes a NEW recommendation on page 23 of the Proposed Final report in relation to remedies available to applicants for grants. This recommendation does not cover the possibility of RFR and IRP that might be filed by someone other than an applicant and I believe that risk must be controlled as well. (ItÃƒÂ¢€™s possible persersons other than appliplicants could file an RFR or an IRP in relation to ICANNÃƒÂ¢Ã¢‚Â¬™s handling of the grantant-making process.) Thee Proposed Final Report should likely also reflect that this requires a Fundamental ByLaws change requiring approval by 3/4 of the EC because public commenters need to know this. In the limited tracking I have done prior to becoming the voting rep for the CSG Chartering organization, I donÃƒÂ¢â‚¬™t recall any specific discuscussions in relation to aa ByLaws amendment relative to the powers of the Empowered Community established in the revisions to the ByLaws made in 2016 as a result of the Accountability Workstream 1 work. Did the CCWG discuss these specific Empowered Community powers in relation to the Budget relative to use of Auction Proceeds? Should the CCWG clarify that we are not recommending ByLaws changes in relation to EC powers? And if we do, does that make individual grants subject to EC powers (a result the CCWG does not want.) To be specific, it does not appear to me from the Proposed Final Report that there has ever been a CCWG Consensus Recommendation in relation to (a) availability of RFR and IRP to persons other than applicants for grants or (b) any effect on the EC powers memorialized in 2016 in relation to the use of Auction Proceeds funds. I sincerely hope we can clarify that the CCWG is not recommending that the Empowered Community give up the Accountability processes contained in the ByLaws in relation to Budgeting of funds obtained via Auction Proceeds. In my view as an active member of Subsequent Procedures, this is a long term concern since the Sub Pro WG is quite likely to confirm that auctions will remain the mechanism of last resort in string contention far into the future. While I understand that ÃƒÂ¢€œability toto SunsetÃƒÂ¢€ is important in relation to the prinnciple of not trying to establish a long term principal endowment, it does seem appropriate to consider that future new gTLD rounds were always intended and are likely to proceed at some point. Thus, future auctions are likely to result in additional auction proceeds. Again, in order to be crystal clear on page 23 of the Proposed Final Report, it would also be helpful if Samantha could clarify how specific ByLaws amendments can be proposed based on the CCWG recommendations. The ByLaws seem to provide in Article 25 that this cannot be ÃƒÂ¢€œdirirectly proposedÃƒÂ¢€ by the CCWG iWG itself so I assume that what the CCWG recommends would need to then lead to a formulation by the Board of a specific ByLaws amendment. See attached section 25.4. Accordingly, in relation to the Proposed Final Report, I believe that the Recommendation (NEW) on page 23 should be reworked to clarify the CCWG Recommendations in relation to the needed ByLaws amendments. Choice of Mechanism and Survey Separately, in regard to the description of risk management I will need to provide to the CSG, I am trying to clarify whether it would be advisable (for the Board, ICANN org, the Community, and the grant recipients themselves) to structure as follows: (1) Fundamental ByLaws change to remove RFR and IRP from (a) remedies for applicants for the funds (b) remedies for anyone else who may have standing to file against ICANN decisions about Budgeting re use of funds inside the org and (b) ICANN decisions about how much to allot to grant-making in ÃƒÂ¢€œtranchesÃƒÂ¢€. &> (2) Preserve EC Powers as they stand in the ByLaws in relation to general Budgeting for both (a) the ICANN org use of the Auction Proceeds funds and (b) ICANN org budgeting of ÃƒÂ¢€œtranchesÃƒÂ¢€ f7; for grant-makimaking purposes. EC powers as to the Budget process have a much higher threshold for challenging ICANNÃƒÂ¢€™Ã¢„Â¢s accountability than do RFR anFR and IRP. A challenge is not easily mounted and a forum must be convened, etc, etc. But I donÃƒÂ¢€™t think nk anyone would want the EC powpowers to apply to any individual grant. So it seems we need to choose a structure that keeps the ÃƒÂ¢€œBudgdgetÃƒÂ¢€ aspectpect of an overall line item for grants wwithin the EC Accountablity provisions but puts the individual grant-making outside the EC Accountablity powers. (Perhaps I am wrong that individual grant-making could be subject to EC general powers if Mechanism A is utilized and if so, please advise. I just donÃƒÂ¢€™t„Â¢t think the the CCWG actually has a Consensus on recommending a ByLaws change in relation to the EC accountability powers.) (3) To preserve the EC powers as to Budget, it would seem ÃƒÂ¢€œcleanerÃƒÂ¢€ to bsp; placelace the actual individual grant-making processes outside ICANN org and have the CCWG recommend and the EC acknowledge that specific individual grants are not subject to the EC Budgeting powers if (a) they are made by a pre-existing non-profit with expertise in grant-making working under the guidelines provided by the work of the CCWG and in accordance with the BoardÃƒÂ¢€™s overversersight responsibilities and fiduciary duties. (Mechanism B) (b) or they are made by an ICANN Foundation formed with an independent Board of Directors similar to the manner in which PTI was formed with ICANN as the sole member of the corporation and thus well able to conduct oversight and fiduciary responsibilities. I appreciate any observations other CCWG members may have that will help bring me up to speed. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [[]] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=Fm…> [[]] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™< From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 7:52 AM To: Becky Burr < becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Becky - ThatÃƒÂ¢€Ã¢„„Â¢s what we agre agreed upon but in the light of AnneÃƒÂ¢€™s Â¢s points ra raised, we should evaluate whether our judgement will not be contestable. Erika Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Becky Burr < becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> wrote: Anne, I think Sam is saying that Mechanisms A, B, and C would ALL require a fundamental bylaws change to eliminate the availability of IRP and Reconsideration with respect to individual grant awards. I think we had strong consensus that decisions on individual grants should not be appealable using Reconsideration and IRP, and that a bylaws change should be pursued. Inasmuch as the EC agreed to a fundamental bylaws change in Montreal, it seems all members have established the necessary processes. Please correct me if I am wrong, Sam. Becky On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:20 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thank you Samantha. I want to make sure I understand the implications for Accountability mechanisms and ByLaws amendments when presenting the options to the CSG. As an initial matter, could you please clarify one question as to Article 25.4 OTHER AMENDMENTS. ÃƒÂ¢€œNeither the EC, the Decisional Participants, , the S Supporting Organizations, the Advisory Committees nor any other entity or person shall have the power to directly propose amendments to these BylawsÃƒÂ¢€. IIn this regard, I gather that the CCWG recommends and then the Board itself will specifically propose a Fundamental ByLaws amendment in relation to Auction Proceeds. Is that your understanding? It seems a bit unlikely that the EC will want to give up its powers in relation to the Budgeting process as regards the use of Auction Proceeds for (a) use for grant-making purposes (regardless of the mechanism chosen) OR (b) internal use by ICANN Org in its own budget. (Perhaps that is why there is a bullet point in Board comment relative to the cost of complying with Accountability mechanisms. However, this cost is identified in that Board comment that now appears on page 10 of the Proposed Final Draft as a cost associated ONLY with Mechanism A. The other mechanisms are listed in the Board input as requiring the further development of independent Accountability mechanisms so that is a bit confusing.) However, overall Budgeting is of course different from the making of individual grants per se. I think we definitely need to protect individual grants from being revoked by the EC. Fundamental ByLaws Changes It appears that eliminating Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Panel (IRP) Accountability mechanisms would be a Fundamental ByLaws change requiring 3/4 approval from the Empowered Community members (some of whom may not have implemented EC processes yet?) Can you confirm this? (Article 25). Mechanism B In Mechanism B, ICANN works with an outside contractor already set up for non-profit grant-making. In that case, it would seem that although overall Budget allocation and tranches may still be subject to Empowered Community processes, individual grants made by the pre-existing expert non-profit would not necessarily be subject to being revoked through an EC process. In other words, working with a qualified expert grant-making organization could reduce risk, including the risk to recipients of grants. (EC processes could theoretically be used to affect or influence the choice of the independent expert non-profit organization and the amount being allocated in any ÃƒÂ¢€œtrancheÃƒÂ¢€.) ________________________________ 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. Â§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.

2 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

Dear CCWG, Someone pointed out that the redlines in the pdf were not visible so please try the attached version instead. As a reminder, your input is due by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 16:32 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019 Dear CCWG, Please find here for your review the latest version of the Final Report: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1hWfSYXuhAalh7F_AkkPDuxU7xf-_bN… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_a_ica…>. Attached you will find a redline version that shows you all the updates that have been made since the previous version but as the large number of redlines may be slightly overwhelming, we have posted the clean version for review and comments. Please note the following: * Text highlighted in blue are those developed by the different small teams and are new compared to the previous version of the report; * Text highlighted in yellow are items that need to be updated after completion of the survey and decision on whether or not to publish for public comment. * Redlines in the attached version are updates in response to comments received on the previous version, clarifications or the result of reorganization of the text because certain recommendations seemed to fit better under a different charter questions. You are requested to focus your review on any ‘cannot live with items’ that need further discussion or consideration. Of course, if you spot any grammatical errors, inconsistencies or language that could be clarified, please note those as well. As a reminder your input is requested by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest (see timeline below). Best regards, Marika Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

6 8

Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report
by Marika Konings Nov. 16, 2019

Nov. 16, 2019

Dear CCWG, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the proposed Final Report in which staff has incorporated the changes discussed during Wednesday’s meeting. As per the timeline discussed (see below), please flag any issues, concerns or proposed edits by Friday 15 November at the latest. Best regards, Marika Action Proposed Timing Updated version of proposed Final Report circulated addressing changes discussed during today’s meeting 8 November 2019 Review by CCWG – final opportunity to flag any issues of concern 15 November 2019 Leadership to reconcile any issues (possible call if needed) By 23 November 2019 Launch indicative survey 25 November 2019 Close indicative survey 1 December 2019 Staff to update report in line with survey results and publish for public comment 8 December 2019 Publish for public comment 16 December 2019 Close of public comment period (consider extending by 1 or 2 weeks to factor in holiday period) 27 January 2020 Review of public comments Feb – March 2020 Finalize report for submission to Chartering Organizations April 2020 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

6 6

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report
by Marika Konings Nov. 15, 2019

Nov. 15, 2019

Hi Anne, all, I believe this is something the CCWG agreed to at a fairly early stage of its deliberations and has been further explained in the context of the response to charter question #4: Charter Question #4: What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? E.g. The timeframe for the operation of this new mechanism may provide the opportunity for long term support, or for funding to be released in tranches linked to milestone achievements, single or multiple disbursements. (…) The CCWG's focus is on the Auction Proceed funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available in the future. The role of this CCWG is to identify and to evaluate possible mechanisms to disburse funds received through auctions from the 2012 gTLD application round. Therefore, the CCWG has focused on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). (…) CCWG Recommendation #6: The selected mechanism must be implemented to enable the availability of funds for a specific round as well as the disbursement of the funds for selected projects in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 14:58 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Subject: [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report Thanks Marika. It seems there may have been a change from the version I previously reviewed in Section 4.1 regarding the “Mechanisms Identified”. I am asking for clarification in relation to this language on page 8: “In considering these recommendations, the CCWG anticipates that the ICANN Board may conduct a feasibility assessment which provides further details on these aspects so that the Board can take an informed decision about supporting the most appropriate mechanism. Such an assessment will have to factor in that it concerns a limited time mechanism with the ability to sunset as the CCWG is recommending against creating a perpetual mechanism.” I am struggling a bit with this recommendation against a perpetual mechanism given the deliberations of Subsequent Procedures. I am a member of that Working Group and we are settling on continuing the auctions process with some “tweaks”, e.g. the possibility of requiring applicants identified in string contention to submit sealed bids without knowing who the other applicants are. In any case, it appears clear that Sub Pro policy will favor auctions as an ongoing tool of “last resort” in connection with string contention. So I wonder how this policy work from Sub Pro was considered in relation to the deliberations of the Auction Proceeds CCWG. (This may not have been settled at the time the CCWG was deliberating on this issue.) I”ll get any other comments out by Friday but this one was a threshold question for me regarding assumptions and the consequences for the upcoming survey on the mechanisms. Thank you, Anne (CSG Rep to Auction Proceeds) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D59AFE.E93C46F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=Fm…> [cid:image002.jpg@01D59AFE.E93C46F0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 11:55 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the proposed Final Report in which staff has incorporated the changes discussed during Wednesday’s meeting. As per the timeline discussed (see below), please flag any issues, concerns or proposed edits by Friday 15 November at the latest. Best regards, Marika Action Proposed Timing Updated version of proposed Final Report circulated addressing changes discussed during today’s meeting 8 November 2019 Review by CCWG – final opportunity to flag any issues of concern 15 November 2019 Leadership to reconcile any issues (possible call if needed) By 23 November 2019 Launch indicative survey 25 November 2019 Close indicative survey 1 December 2019 Staff to update report in line with survey results and publish for public comment 8 December 2019 Publish for public comment 16 December 2019 Close of public comment period (consider extending by 1 or 2 weeks to factor in holiday period) 27 January 2020 Review of public comments Feb – March 2020 Finalize report for submission to Chartering Organizations April 2020 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. ________________________________ 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.

3 9

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report
by Marika Konings Nov. 15, 2019

Nov. 15, 2019

All, please rest assured that we’ll make sure that the members / participants list is up to date before the report is published. We’ll use this as the reference information, so you may want to check that all info is up to date: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw and https://community.icann.org/x/GJjDAw. Best regards, Marika From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Friday, November 15, 2019 at 17:02 To: "judith(a)jhellerstein.com" <judith(a)jhellerstein.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report I also think it would be appropriate to add Marilyn Cade’s name as former CSG Rep. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Judith Hellerstein Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 3:11 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; erika(a)erikamann.com; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ HI Marika, Please make sure the table of participants is accurate. In this draft it still lists Seun Ojedeji as a Member and not me. We officially changed it at the end of last fiscal year but the table still has the wrong information. I see you made the adjustment for Jonathan Robinson but my name has not been corrected. I cannot understand why we cannot get this changed. Please make this adjustment. Please remove me from Participant and put me in the member slot. Many thanks for making this change. Alan Greenberg ALAC Maureen Hilyard * ALAC Seun Ojedeji should be Judith Hellerstein* ALAC Vanda Scartezini * ALAC I only had time for a quick review before today's deadline but it looks to be OK Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com [jhellerstein.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jhellerstein.com&d=…> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jhe…> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 11/8/2019 1:55 PM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear CCWG, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the proposed Final Report in which staff has incorporated the changes discussed during Wednesday’s meeting. As per the timeline discussed (see below), please flag any issues, concerns or proposed edits by Friday 15 November at the latest. Best regards, Marika Action Proposed Timing Updated version of proposed Final Report circulated addressing changes discussed during today’s meeting 8 November 2019 Review by CCWG – final opportunity to flag any issues of concern 15 November 2019 Leadership to reconcile any issues (possible call if needed) By 23 November 2019 Launch indicative survey 25 November 2019 Close indicative survey 1 December 2019 Staff to update report in line with survey results and publish for public comment 8 December 2019 Publish for public comment 16 December 2019 Close of public comment period (consider extending by 1 or 2 weeks to factor in holiday period) 27 January 2020 Review of public comments Feb – March 2020 Finalize report for submission to Chartering Organizations April 2020 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report
by Becky Burr Nov. 15, 2019

Nov. 15, 2019

Assuming that the CCWG recommends more than 1 mechanism, I would anticipate that the results of a feasibility study - however conducted - would be published for community input. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, November 15, 2019 at 10:13 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report Hi Anne, Staff’s understanding is that this is dependent on whether the CCWG decides to recommend 1 or more mechanisms for ICANN Board consideration. It is expected that following the survey, there will be hopefully further clarity around the group’s preference in this regard. Should the CCWG decide to recommend only 1 mechanism, this wording may need to be updated to reflect that? Of course, CCWG members and participants are encouraged to weigh in if they have a different understanding. Best regards, Marika From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 15:46 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report Thanks Marika, Does the rest of the language re the CCWG anticipating that the Board will conduct a feasibility assessment mean that such a study will be conducted regardless of the mechanism recommended by the CCWG after the survey results are received? Is there some reason that the Board will be conducting this study itself rather than the CCWG supervising the feasibility assessment? Again, my concern is risk to the Board if the selection of the mechanism is not squarely within the bottom-up MSM policy process. A feasibility assessment to evaluate the mechanisms at the direction of the Board could be an issue in this regard. Anne From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 2:20 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Cc: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, all, I believe this is something the CCWG agreed to at a fairly early stage of its deliberations and has been further explained in the context of the response to charter question #4: Charter Question #4: What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? E.g. The timeframe for the operation of this new mechanism may provide the opportunity for long term support, or for funding to be released in tranches linked to milestone achievements, single or multiple disbursements. (…) The CCWG's focus is on the Auction Proceed funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available in the future. The role of this CCWG is to identify and to evaluate possible mechanisms to disburse funds received through auctions from the 2012 gTLD application round. Therefore, the CCWG has focused on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). (…) CCWG Recommendation #6: The selected mechanism must be implemented to enable the availability of funds for a specific round as well as the disbursement of the funds for selected projects in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 14:58 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Cc: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report Thanks Marika. It seems there may have been a change from the version I previously reviewed in Section 4.1 regarding the “Mechanisms Identified”. I am asking for clarification in relation to this language on page 8: “In considering these recommendations, the CCWG anticipates that the ICANN Board may conduct a feasibility assessment which provides further details on these aspects so that the Board can take an informed decision about supporting the most appropriate mechanism. Such an assessment will have to factor in that it concerns a limited time mechanism with the ability to sunset as the CCWG is recommending against creating a perpetual mechanism.” I am struggling a bit with this recommendation against a perpetual mechanism given the deliberations of Subsequent Procedures. I am a member of that Working Group and we are settling on continuing the auctions process with some “tweaks”, e.g. the possibility of requiring applicants identified in string contention to submit sealed bids without knowing who the other applicants are. In any case, it appears clear that Sub Pro policy will favor auctions as an ongoing tool of “last resort” in connection with string contention. So I wonder how this policy work from Sub Pro was considered in relation to the deliberations of the Auction Proceeds CCWG. (This may not have been settled at the time the CCWG was deliberating on this issue.) I”ll get any other comments out by Friday but this one was a threshold question for me regarding assumptions and the consequences for the upcoming survey on the mechanisms. Thank you, Anne (CSG Rep to Auction Proceeds) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D59B94.EDB47770] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=Fm…> [cid:image002.jpg@01D59B94.EDB47770] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 11:55 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Comments due by Friday 15 November - latest version of proposed Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the proposed Final Report in which staff has incorporated the changes discussed during Wednesday’s meeting. As per the timeline discussed (see below), please flag any issues, concerns or proposed edits by Friday 15 November at the latest. Best regards, Marika Action Proposed Timing Updated version of proposed Final Report circulated addressing changes discussed during today’s meeting 8 November 2019 Review by CCWG – final opportunity to flag any issues of concern 15 November 2019 Leadership to reconcile any issues (possible call if needed) By 23 November 2019 Launch indicative survey 25 November 2019 Close indicative survey 1 December 2019 Staff to update report in line with survey results and publish for public comment 8 December 2019 Publish for public comment 16 December 2019 Close of public comment period (consider extending by 1 or 2 weeks to factor in holiday period) 27 January 2020 Review of public comments Feb – March 2020 Finalize report for submission to Chartering Organizations April 2020 Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. ________________________________ 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.

1 0