May 2020 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Final Report of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on new gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Emily Barabas 01 Jun '20

01 Jun '20

Sent on Behalf of Erika Mann (GNSO) and Ching Chiao (ccNSO), Co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on new gTLD Auction Proceeds Dear Chartering Organizations, On behalf of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on new gTLD Auction Proceeds, we are pleased to share with you the CCWG’s Final Report. According to the CCWG’s charter (https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw) “Following the submission of the final output, each of the Chartering Organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the output and decide whether to adopt the proposals and the recommendations contained within. The chairs of the Chartering Organizations shall notify the chair(s) of the CCWG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. . . In the event that all Chartering Organizations support the (Supplemental) Final Report, and only if so recommended by the CCWG, the Leadership Team of the CCWG shall submit the (Supplemental) Final Report to the ICANN Board of Directors.” We appreciate your consideration of the Final Report and ask the Chartering Organizations to respond with the results of deliberations within 60 days. If this is not feasible, please let us know when you expect to be able to provide your group’s response. This Final Report contains responses to 11 questions presented in the CCWG’s charter that address different areas of the CCWG’s work. The Final Report includes a series of recommendations as well a set of proposals that are intended to guide the implementation phase of work. Assuming adoption of the Final Report and its recommendations by all the Chartering Organizations and subsequently the ICANN Board, the implementation phase is the next phase that will translate the current work into concrete operation. Annex C of the Final Report provides additional guidance on the review and selection of projects to receive funding once the mechanism for allocating auction proceeds is in operation. The CCWG emphasizes that it expects the ICANN Board to follow the recommendations and guidance provided in the CCWG’s Final Report, as it is the culmination of more than three years of work by members and participants, drawing on the contributions of experts in the field of charitable giving and input from the broader ICANN community. To support your review of the Final Report, we are planning to hold an informational webinar for Chartering Organizations in the near future. Details will be shared through a separate message. If there is an interest, we are also available to hold smaller question and answer sessions with individual Chartering Organizations, following this informational webinar. Please let us know if you would like to schedule such a session. If you have any questions about the attached Final Report or the work of the CCWG, please do not hesitate to contact us or your members serving on the CCWG. We appreciate all the support you and your appointed members have given to this effort over the last few years. We look forward to receiving your response. Kind regards, Erika Mann (GNSO) and Ching Chiao (ccNSO) Co-Chairs

5 4

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] - CSG Minority Statement
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne 28 May '20

28 May '20

Dear Erika, Congratulations on reaching this stage of the process. Attached please find the short Minority Statement submitted by the Commercial Stakeholders Group. The underlying need to submit a Minority View should be clear from the text. In this regard, all three constituencies join in the first part of the Statement regarding the summary of polling results, while the IPC has expressed strong opposition to adoption of mechanism A by the ICANN Board. Again, many thanks for your able leadership in bringing this CCWG Final Report to a close. Sincerely, Anne Aikman-Scalese CSG Voting Member From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:36 PM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: FW: Closure of consensus call [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, At this stage, the Co-Chairs believe that it is appropriate to close the consensus call and proceed with the designation that there is consensus support for the Final Report and recommendations. We appreciate the input of those members that have engaged in dialogue during the consensus call process and believe that all perspectives have been taken into account. Please find attached the final text of the report, which includes the consensus level designation. See pages 4 and 21. As a reminder, if you would like to submit a minority statement, the deadline to do so is tomorrow, 28 May. These statements, if any, will either be included in an Annex to the report or posted on the wiki and referenced in the report, depending on the number and length of submissions. Once minority statements are collected and organized, the Final Report will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations. Thank you all for your hard work in reaching this important milestone. Congratulations! Kind regards, Erika and Ching -Wednesday, May 27, 2020 ________________________________ 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

ICANN68 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Julie Bisland 28 May '20

28 May '20

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN68 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_gnsobriefi…> Thank you. Kind regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Fwd: FW: Closure of consensus call
by Erika Mann 27 May '20

27 May '20

Dear All, At this stage, the Co-Chairs believe that it is appropriate to close the consensus call and proceed with the designation that there is consensus support for the Final Report and recommendations. We appreciate the input of those members that have engaged in dialogue during the consensus call process and believe that all perspectives have been taken into account. Please find attached the final text of the report, which includes the consensus level designation. See pages 4 and 21. As a reminder, if you would like to submit a minority statement, the deadline to do so is tomorrow, 28 May. These statements, if any, will either be included in an Annex to the report or posted on the wiki and referenced in the report, depending on the number and length of submissions. Once minority statements are collected and organized, the Final Report will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations. Thank you all for your hard work in reaching this important milestone. Congratulations! Kind regards, Erika and Ching -Wednesday, May 27, 2020

1 0

Fwd: FW: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020
by Erika Mann 27 May '20

27 May '20

Dear Robert, Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you kindly provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG? Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about recommendation 1 that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later than Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag? I hope all is well with you and your family! Kind regards, Erika Erika Mann Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling +32 498 121354 On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas" <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi John, Thanks for your reply. Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed Final Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not object to any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is unfortunate that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to the exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so that the work of the CCWG can be concluded." Would it be possible to provide additional detail about SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately clear how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the SSAC more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in advance for any additional clarification you can provide. As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list. Kind regards, Emily On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A. The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send the report, but you do not have consensus. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u…

2 2

REMINDER - Deadline Thursday, 28 May - minority statements
by Emily Barabas 27 May '20

27 May '20

Dear all, As a reminder, if you would like to submit minority viewpoints (details below), the deadline to do so is this Thursday, 28 May at 23:59 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 15:42 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] Dear all, Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms. Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see poll results in excel format here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%2…>). With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this result. Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete. The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter<https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details, an excerpt of which is included below). We believe that the CCWG supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation, please respond to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, you may do so, but this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due 28 May at 23:59 UTC (21 days from today). Minority statements may be included in an annex to the Final Report or linked from the Final Report to the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received. Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering Organizations with the Final Report. If you have questions or comments on this draft letter, please send to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). We hope you are all well, take good care and, kind regards, Erika and Ching Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation: In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.

7 14

Deadline TOMORROW - CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call
by Emily Barabas 21 May '20

21 May '20

Dear all, As a reminder, tomorrow is the deadline for members to challenge the Co-Chairs’ designation of the level of consensus on CCWG recommendations (report attached, see details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 15:42 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] Dear all, Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms. Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see poll results in excel format here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%2…>). With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this result. Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete. The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter<https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details, an excerpt of which is included below). We believe that the CCWG supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation, please respond to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, you may do so, but this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due 28 May at 23:59 UTC (21 days from today). Minority statements may be included in an annex to the Final Report or linked from the Final Report to the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received. Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering Organizations with the Final Report. If you have questions or comments on this draft letter, please send to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). We hope you are all well, take good care and, kind regards, Erika and Ching Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation: In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.

2 1

REMINDER: Deadline 21 May 2020 - CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call
by Emily Barabas 18 May '20

18 May '20

Dear all, As a reminder, the following deadlines are coming up: * Thursday 21 May: Deadline for members to challenge the Co-Chairs’ designation of the level of consensus on CCWG recommendations (report attached, see details below) * Thursday 21 May: Deadline to submit proposed edits to the draft cover letter to Chartering Organizations, which will accompany the Final Report (draft attached, see details below) * Thursday 28 May: Deadline to submit minority viewpoints (see details below) Kind regards, Emily From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 15:42 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] Dear all, Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms. Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see poll results in excel format here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%2…>). With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this result. Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete. The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter<https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details, an excerpt of which is included below). We believe that the CCWG supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation, please respond to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, you may do so, but this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due 28 May at 23:59 UTC (21 days from today). Minority statements may be included in an annex to the Final Report or linked from the Final Report to the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received. Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering Organizations with the Final Report. If you have questions or comments on this draft letter, please send to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). We hope you are all well, take good care and, kind regards, Erika and Ching Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation: In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.

3 3

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020
by Emily Barabas 08 May '20

08 May '20

Hi Anne, Thanks for your response. On the attached version of the Final Report, the words “strong” and “stronger” have been removed on page 4 and 21. Note that in Erika’s message below, the Co-Chairs have proposed a designation of “consensus” (“a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree”) and not “full consensus.” If you have further concerns after consulting with the CSG, please let us know. All - if there are any objections to the edits proposed below and included in the attached, please respond on-list. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 22:33 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] Thanks Emily. I would need to review this with CSG. Separately, as you know, the designation, “Full Consensus” is specifically equated in the Working Group Guidelines with “Unanimous Consensus”. So a “Full Consensus” designation would not be accurate in the case of this Final Report. It seems to me that if the word, “stronger” is removed from the Recommendation and “strong” is removed from the poll summary language, I could certainly recommend a simple “Consensus” designation to the CSG. Thank you, Anne From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:34 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; erika(a)erikamann.com; Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, Thanks for your careful review of the revised language reflecting the results of the final poll. Below, you raise concern about the following sentence in the response to Charter question 1: “Poll results[1] indicate that members have a strong preference for 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).” Would it address your concern to remove the word “strong” from this sentence? Please note that the consensus call is focused on the Recommendations put forward in the Report (as opposed to the other elements of the report). Here is the text of the recommendation regarding selection of mechanisms: CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A. 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. The CCWG strongly encourages the ICANN Board to conduct a feasibility assessment which provides further analysis of the recommended mechanisms, including costs associated with each mechanism, so that the Board can take an informed decision about supporting the most appropriate mechanism. The first sentence is the newly added part. Do you have concerns about the text of this recommendation that we can address? Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 19:33 To: "erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com<mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] Erika et al, Many thanks for your work and the ICANN staff work in finalizing this report. Consensus Level and Possible Need for Minority Statement Given that a total of 7 members voted for a Mechanism other than A (split votes between B and C), I would say the appropriate level of consensus is actually Rough Consensus. Seven Member votes for Mechanisms B and C combined does not mean that the WG indicated a “strong preference” for Mechanism A. This is because those voting for Mechanisms B and C were motivated by a concern for more independence from ICANN org in the administrative process. In short, there were 7 votes for Mechanism A and 7 votes for Mechanisms more independent than A. In addition, one conclusion in the report will need to be considered as requiring a Minority Statement. The text in question from Section 4 is as follows: Considering the responses from participants did not significantly change the direction provided by the CCWG members as one participant indicated their preference for mechanism A and three participants indicated their preference for mechanism B. Adding together the votes of the Participants to those of the Members, the number in favor of Mechanism A is 8 and the number in favor of Mechanism B is 7. This count demonstrates that among all those answering the poll, there is clearly NOT a “strong preference” in those participating for Mechanism A over Mechanism B. So the statement above is not quite accurate. I understand that Minority Statements are due by May 28 and I will review this with the CSG. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:41 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com<mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020] [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms. Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see poll results in excel format here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%2…>). With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this result. Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete. The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter<https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details, an excerpt of which is included below). We believe that the CCWG supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation, please respond to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, you may do so, but this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due 28 May at 23:59 UTC (21 days from today). Minority statements may be included in an annex to the Final Report or linked from the Final Report to the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received. Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering Organizations with the Final Report. If you have questions or comments on this draft letter, please send to the email list no later than 21 May at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today). We hope you are all well, take good care and, kind regards, Erika and Ching Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation: In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 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] See section 4 of this report for additional details about poll results.

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020]
by Emily Barabas 08 May '20

08 May '20

Hi John, Thanks for your reply. Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed Final Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not object to any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is unfortunate that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to the exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so that the work of the CCWG can be concluded." Would it be possible to provide additional detail about SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately clear how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the SSAC more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in advance for any additional clarification you can provide. As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list. Kind regards, Emily On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A. The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send the report, but you do not have consensus. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u…

1 0