- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

FYI: Request for Input from ICANN Board from Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
by Erika Mann Sept. 30, 2019

Sept. 30, 2019

FYI Dear CCWG AP team - Leadership hasn’t had a chance to review the Board replies to our questions yet but I’m very glad we received them before our next call. We will evaluate these replies as quickly as possible and, in the meantime, please look at them too. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> > Date: September 29, 2019 at 3:57:13 PM GMT+2 > To: "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, "ching.chiao(a)gmail.com" <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org>, "maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org" <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org>, "Sally Costerton" <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Sally Newell Cohen <sally.newellcohen(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: Request for Input from ICANN Board from Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) > > Dear Erika and Ching, > > Thank you for the emails of 30 July 2019 and 5 August 2019 requesting ICANN Board input on areas of work of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP). > > The Board is appreciative of the work of the CCWG on this important topic and welcomes the opportunity to provide input and does so in the spirit of collaboration with the CCWG in producing its final report. > > Please find attached a written response from the ICANN Board CCWG-AP Liaisons, Becky and Maarten, to this request. > > Best wishes, > Lauren >

1 0

For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C
by Marika Konings Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear CCWG, As discussed on Wednesday’s meeting, please find attached, highlighted in yellow, the additional explanations in relation to mechanism C for inclusion in the proposed Final Report. If you have any comments, concerns or proposed changes to this language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 25 September at the latest. Best regards, Marika 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…>.

3 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 21, 2019

Sept. 21, 2019

Let's see how the facts play out. I don't think that the ISOC or PIR foundations are role models, as they are indeed "captive" foundations. But as I have followed the ISOC Foundation, that certainly got set up very quickly. And, we can disagree on this, of course, but with mutual respect for different views. Marilyn ________________________________ From: John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2019 4:03 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - additional explanations in relation to mechanism C > While I greatly appreciate the progress to treat all 3 mechanisms until we further prioritize neutrally, I am objecting to the following insertion which once again conveys that Mechanism C in certain situation [e.g. an independent Foundation] is less desirable than Mechanism A or B. I think you're in the rough here. To me, the obvious disadvantages of mechanism C are so great, more delay, more expense, more bureaucracy, that it's not worth additional attention. I think you'll find that a "fully independent" foundation would give ICANN's lawyers a heart attack, since if it's fully independent, ICANN has no way to ensure that the money is distributed appropriately. If it's a captive foundation, ICANN can always tell it where to send the money because that's how captive foundations work. I am dismayed that we still seem to be arguing about these basic facts of corporate organization. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&amp…

1 0

Post call / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/WIzkBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and participants can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to participant. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/> and the main wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/yJXDAw> Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

action items and notes | CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14.00 UTC
by Joke Braeken Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

Dear all, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14.00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . Best regards, Joke Braeken ACTION ITEMS Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text. Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff. Action item #3: · ICANN legal to verify the situation where ICANN would be an applicant, once the funds are transferred into a foundation. Make sure that the language is consistent with that. Verify that this is persistent for all 3 mechanisms · CCWG members to Review proposed language and provide feedback in case of concerns. Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds. · Staff to verify that the text in the body of the report is consistent with the footnote. Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference. · additional adjustment needed to the text in the report "The total net proceeds to date are $233.5 million USD." · ICANN legal/finance to confirm whether additional comment is needed, regarding the funds from the .web auction to be parked Action item #5: Reference to ongoing work regarding GPI to be added in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a global public interest framework. Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team. Action item #7: Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in. NOTES 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Ching is only on the phone bridge. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. 2. Updated Draft Final Report – Outstanding Items and Clarifications Agenda was slightly updated, compared to the version shared on the mailing list. * Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission” * Page 12 – quote from the Board, input from early stage: “The Board is responsible for making sure that ICANN’s mission is observed at all points throughout the process, and any disbursement mechanism must have processes and procedures to ensure that auction proceeds are used in a manner that contributes directly to ICANN’s mission.” (https://community.icann.org/x/V7XRAw) Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text. Becky: for this particular provision, quote from the Board’s communication. Language should remain as it is, for this particular section Next 3 bullet points are linked. (page 17, 19, 22. Response to Charter question 3, 5, 10). We added C back into the discussion. * Page 17 – response to charter question 3 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 19 – response to charter question 5 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 22 – response to charter question 10 from the perspective of mechanism C Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff. * Page 22 – clarification of text regarding separation of auction funds and ICANN’s operational budget General comment from Marylin, where she raised that additional clarification might be needed. Keeping auction proceeds separate from operational budget. ICANN finance provided input. Will be included in the next iteration of the report. Xavier: provided language, that the overarching principle for the Auction Proceeds is not to be used to fund ICANN’s ongoing activities. “Consistently with the intended purpose of auction proceeds as stated in the Applicant Guidebook, the general use of the auction proceeds should exclude the funding of any ICANN on-going operational activities. The auction proceeds are funds that result from circumstances that are unpredictable as to their occurrence, repetition, extent and sustainability. As a result, they cannot support the management of on-going activities, which require predictable and sustainable funding.”  Proposed text to include on page 22 Marylin: Generally this is what we are looking for. This type of information might be clear to us, but not everyone is aware. It should refer to ICANN Org. Use “consistent” instead of “consistently”. Ching: everything ICANN as an applicant does in mechanism A and B, they will fulfill the mission maintained and created by themselves. No additional requirements on ICANN’s shoulders. There is not much ICANN can do under mechanism A and B as an applicant. Sam: ICANN cannot apply for funds from the foundation, once that money is transferred to the foundation. under C there is no way in which ICANN Org could apply. Marilyn: I think it would be very difficult for ICANN to receive Auction Funds under Mechanism A and B. One reason that the CSG has been favoring Mechanism C is to have more independence, and I agree with Ching’s comments. Action item #3: * ICANN legal to verify the situation where ICANN would be an applicant, once the funds are transferred into a foundation. Make sure that the language is consistent with that. Verify that this is persistent for all 3 mechanisms * CCWG members to Review proposed language and provide feedback in case of concerns. * Page 30 – question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds * Of the $233.5 million in auction proceeds, $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. The resolution of the .WEB contention set is being challenged through ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. $36 million was allocated to the ICANN reserve fund. As of 30 June 2019, the net return on investment was $10.5m. Therefore, the total auction proceeds as of 30 June 2019 are $208 million, of which $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. Emily : Additional detail added as footnote on page 30. In response to a comment from Marylin asking for additional detail on that number. Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds. * Staff to verify that the text in the body of the report is consistent with the footnote. Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference. * additional adjustment needed to the text in the report "The total net proceeds to date are $233.5 million USD." * ICANN legal/finance to confirm whether additional comment is needed, regarding the funds from the .web auction to be parked * Xavier will explain further the difference between interest and return on investment. Funds allocated at an investment account. 3 different firms have been used, to minimise risks. Investment policies are conservative. Listed also on the website. Relatively minimum and steady returns. Xavier: make it clear in the report that the specific proceeds (.web) are not available for distribution, until the proceedings have been completed. * Suggested additional text in Annex C (page 37). The purpose of the grant application must be in service of ICANN’s mission and consistent with the commitment and core values set out in the bylaws, including those relating to the global public interest. Suggestion by Maureen. Include reference to global public interest in Annex C. Becky suggested the text. Nearly impossible to define “global public interest”. Discussion paper, public session to be scheduled at ICANN66. Taking into account the decisions taken by the Board in response to a call by the Board to create a framework. Consultation ongoing. Footnote to be added, debate to be followed. Maybe addition to the guidance in the transition phase. Becky: There is no effort to “define” the GPI in a static way Action item #5: Staff to add reference to ongoing work regarding GPI in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a public interest framework. 3. Outstanding Questions for ICANN Org and Board: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90770179/Questions_31jul20… Summary provided by Erika. Sam: The Board’s reply should be coming shortly. The ICANN org response will follow after that . Marika: The group may need to consider if/how the responses impact the current draft of the final report, and/or the survey we intend to launch later this week. Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team. 4. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) Timeline, which was also shared on the previous meeting and on the mailing list. a. Launch of the Indicative Survey on the mechanisms among the CCWG members. Friday 20 September Content of the survey: do you want to recommend either 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms to the ICANN Board, secondly, Rank the mechanisms in their order of preference. Give members some time to consult with their respective groups. b. Timing of the Definitive Survey – Monday 14 October Potentially next call needed in 2 week’s time, to discuss refinements. CCWG members might need to carry out their tasks in a shorter time frame. Flexibility is possible in this suggested timeframe, but limited. c. Indication of Level of Support for Mechanism and Recommendations – Friday 25 October Finalise report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to Chartering organisations. ICANN66 session on Wed, 6 Nov (15:15-18:30) to present the final report. d. Consensus Call Language from the CCWG charter that talks about the consensus call and the requirements in place. Charter talks about the Decision-making process. · Declaration of Minority Positions Action item #7 Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in. 5. Whether to Have an Additional Public Comment Period Before submitting the report to the chartering organisations for their considerations. Does the group already want to have the formal consensus call, to be included in the report? Or just an indication of the level of support? So that the community can see in which direction the group is leaning? Caution: nuanced process where the chairs look at the make-up of the positions, broadly supported, or are the views coming from one particular side of the community. It is not just a question of “counting noses”. Another public comment round regarding the proposed final report: Erika believes we should do so. Marika: In that case, what are the questions you want to ask that help you finalise the report, and making sure the report is in line with the community’s expectations. Typically, a comment period is 40 days. Additional time when it runs during an ICANN public meeting. The CCWG will need to review the comments and respond to them. Adding a minimum of 2 months to the finalisation of the report. Once the report goes to the CO, and then to the ICANN Board, the Board will typically also hold a comment period. Report: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/115641432/new%20gTLD%20AP%…  This is the version circulated with the agenda for this call Marilyn: we did substantive work. We do need to take public comment on that. Agrees with the suggested approach: invite to comment on the new work. If there was public comment prior to CO seeking approval, the board might not require an additional comment period. on WS2, for example, the report was transmitted directly, without comment, after chartering org approval. there IS a requirement on the policy side and for specific reviews for public comment prior to Board consideration. ICANN66 Session on Wed, 6 November (15:15-18:30). We might not need that much time to present the final report. Start of the meeting partially overlaps with another meeting. 6. AOB next meeting? Thank you all. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - Wednesday 18 September at 14.00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG meeting tomorrow Wednesday 18 September at 14.00 UTC. Attached you will find in redline and clean versions, the latest update to the draft Final Report. Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Updated Draft Final Report – Outstanding Items and Clarifications * Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission” * Page 12 – quote from the Board, input from early stage: “The Board is responsible for making sure that ICANN’s mission is observed at all points throughout the process, and any disbursement mechanism must have processes and procedures to ensure that auction proceeds are used in a manner that contributes directly to ICANN’s mission.” (https://community.icann.org/x/V7XRAw) * Page 17 – response to charter question 3 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 19 – response to charter question 5 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 22 – clarification of text regarding separation of auction funds and ICANN’s operational budget * Page 22 – response to charter question 10 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 30 – question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds * Of the $233.5 million in auction proceeds, $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. The resolution of the .WEB contention set is being challenged through ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. $36 million was allocated to the ICANN reserve fund. As of 30 June 2019, the net return on investment was $10.5m. Therefore, the total auction proceeds as of 30 June 2019 are $208 million, of which $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. * Xavier will explain further the difference between interest and return on investment. 3. Outstanding Questions for ICANN Org and Board: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90770179/Questions_31jul20… 4. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) a. Launch of the Indicative Survey – Friday 20 September b. Timing of the Definitive Survey – Monday 14 October c. Indication of Level of Support for Mechanism and Recommendations – Friday 25 October d. Consensus Call * Declaration of Minority Positions 5. Whether to Have an Additional Public Comment Period 6. AOB 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

5 5

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Fw: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 13, 2019

Sept. 13, 2019

With apologies, I didn't realize I had not copied the CCWG-AP list. Thanks, Marika, for pointing that out. Perhaps my key points include being clear and neutral on how the description of the 3 options is presented in the poll, and that there should be a second public comment period -- we have made a LOT of changes and enhancements, and it is quite unfair to the communities to not allow them to provide input. We could, however, develop a more targeted comment process, which highlights the areas where there has been significant enhancement, or further elaboration, so keep the comments very focused on those areas. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 13:02 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fw: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds With apologies, Marika, I spent most of yesterday afternoon dealing with a virus on my MacBook/amazing how long it took for Apple Genius to actually turn out to be a genius! In any case, if not too late..... I didn't do edits, but focused on just four areas. CSG response: Submitted by Marilyn Cade I. Plans to take "polls": -Polling must be presented completely factually and neutrally regarding the three Mechanisms A,B.C. e.g. if one Mechanism is mentioned, all three should be. The CSG supports having two questions: 1) Mechanism preference - decide on only one or two to send forward, or keep all three? 2) Send out for Public Comment, synthesize Comments into the Final report, then send to SO/ACs and Board OR send to SO/ACs now [and presumably, after that, to the Board] ________________________________ Background Note: I see one section -- p 15 and again on p 17 that still need to be edited. Originally, there were two sections in the Final Report that seemingly promotes Mechanism B.As all are aware, I questioned this and one paragraph that had been accidentally left in from earlier drafts was removed. One remains: Page 15. The comment on p 17 is suggesting that much more work is needed to establish the external mechanism, versus Mechanism A and B. Some in the CCWG-AP believe that establishing a truly independent internal division at ICANN will require considerable work, as well, with both entry and exit strategies; safeguards; establishment of job descriptions; provision for Let's be extra careful and diligent to be unbiased in how the three mechanisms are described. This is an example of the importance of being very neutral and factual in the Report, as whether it is the SO/ACs or a Public Comment period/then the SO/ACS, as the next stage, these are very complex decisions. II. Question regarding the phrase: "must directly serve ICANN's Mission", versus "be consistent with ICANN's Mission". I believe that consistent with ICANN's Mission is sufficient. III. Final Amount of Auction Proceeds/number of years to disperse via any mechanism: Not fully addressed in the DRAFT Report -- which for many in the community will be very confusing. Right now, the DRAFT report states that the amount of Auction Funds is $233.5, with 3 contention sets yet to be determined. What is not mentioned is what is happening to the interest accued over the past few years on the $233.5 million, or if that total is inclusive of the interest. This information should be included in the DRAFT report, at least in an ANNEX. V. Use of Auction Funds for any further contribution to ICANN Reserve Fund, versus ICANN overall budget: Clarification may be needed regarding maintaining the integrity of keeping the Auction Funds separate from contributions to the ICANN Operating Budget.

1 0

For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings Sept. 2, 2019

Sept. 2, 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…. 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…>.

4 8

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings Aug. 31, 2019

Aug. 31, 2019

Thanks, Marilyn for flagging this. I’ve updated the section you refer to with yellow highlighting to make clear that it will need to be updated per the outcome of the survey. The language there is a remainder from the Initial Report where the original focus was on mechanisms A an B. There are some other spots in the report where we have flagged that if mechanism C will be recommended as a result of the survey, the language will need to be enhanced as it is currently lacking. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 04:50 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019 Thanks for sending the present DRAFT Final Report. I will spend time reading the full report in more detail, having only skimmed it now, at 6 am my time. However, I have an immediate serious issue with page 14 and 15. We have spent the last several weeks discussing Mechanism A and Mechanism C. Almost no time even mentioning Mechanism B. Yet, I see in the report that Mechanism C is not even referenced under Charter Question #7. By staff and the leadership team even including Mechanism A and B here, it implies that these are the two mechanisms preferred for further assessment. I do not believe that is generally supported by the majority of the members of the CCWG-AP. We haven't yet "rated" the three mechanisms, but we have primarily discussed only two in the recent discussions -- and that does not include Mechanism B. So, I don't see what the justification is for excluding Mechanism C here OR, these two paragraphs should be edited out and just keep the new text. I am sure no one means to reflect a preference here, and possibly this is just unfortunate. However, think about it: if the "rating" we are doing selects A and C, and then the staff/leadership draft in the next paragraph shows preference for A and B, it gives a very confusing message to the community, to the Board, and to the SO/ACs. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 6:29 PM 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… [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…>. 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 [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur01.safelinks.protec…>.

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

Attached is the final version. In response to Becky's comment, I have added the word "cumulative" in 3rd APPRP bullet. It now reads: The prime function of the APPRP will be to perform an annual review (starting at the end of year 2) of the ongoing operational process including an assessment of approved projects vs auction proceeds goals and an cumulative assessment of the success of funded projects (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). This hopefully makes it clear that the APPRP is not actually assessing project success but is looking at the cumulative or average success of the entire project portfolio. Alan At 26/08/2019 05:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I'll do a revision once a few more comments come it, but will make it VERY clear that the APPRP will not evaluate specific projects. As an aside, if the APPRP feels that the Mechanism is not doing proper project result evaluation, that would be a dandy reason to suggest an APPAP. Alan At 26/08/2019 05:29 PM, Becky Burr wrote: >I think it is fine for APPRP to use the >individual assessments provided by experts to >measure the overall success of the program, but >very concerned about any evaluation of >individual projects by the APPRP. I am >concerned that Sam’s language below leaves that door open. > >From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds ><ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on >behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam(a)lanfranco.net> >Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM >To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org>, >Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal > > >Becky’s comments touch on an area that may >need better clarity. This is the start of a new >undertaking and the annual review wording might >be cast slightly differently. Something like: > > * The prime function of the APPRP will be > to perform an annual review, starting at the > end of year 2. The first annual review will > focus on Mechanism development and an > assessment of approved projects relative to > auction proceeds goals. Subsequent reviews will > include an assessment of funded projects, based > on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP. > > * The APPRP will focus on the Mechanism in > terms of its operational performance and the > auction proceeds goals. It will not investigate > individual projects beyond what is provided in > the assessments provided to the APPRP. >Casting the wording something like this (a) >distinguishes between the initial assessment and >subsequent assessments, and (b) limits >individual project assessment to evidence >“provided to the APPRP”. That does leave >open the question of who provides that evidence. >I assume that is the project recipient’s own >self reporting, with the Mechanism responsible >for assessing the quality of the reporting. >Sam L >On 8/26/2019 4:07 PM, Becky Burr wrote: >I am having a little trouble reconciling this: > > > * The prime function of the APPRP will be > to perform an annual review (starting at the > end of year 2) of the ongoing operational > process including an assessment of approved > projects vs auction proceeds goals and an > assessment of the success of funded projects > (based on interim and final assessments provided to the APPRP). >with this: > > * For avoidance of doubt, the APPRP will > focus on the overall operation of the Mechanism > and will not evaluate the success of individual > funded projects, although the APPRP may take > into consideration such evaluations performed by the Mechanism. >In the first bullet, perhaps it would be clearer >to say "an assessment of the overall success of the program"? _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)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) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

9 18