HI all,

There is a lot of redline language on pages 8 and 9 and I am endeavoring to understand the implications of all the costs and also the creation of subcategories for Mechanism C referred to as C1 and C2.  Accordingly, I put together the table below to try to create a tool for comparisons of what now seem to be four mechanisms.  I think it would be helpful for the CCWG to reflect a bit on that added redline language and the table below to see if the Proposed Final Report is as clear as it could be for public comment purposes:

 

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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 [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. 

 

 

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.