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@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

Because what matters

to you, matters to us.™

 

 

 

 

 

 

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@icann.org  

 

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.