Hi Sylvia,

Thanks for your input and the question about additional surveys. At this stage, we do not have an additional survey planned, at least not prior to publishing the proposed Final Report for public comment.

We will share an export of all of the responses when the survey closes, so you will have your responses in that document in case you want to reference them in the future.

Kind regards,

Emily

From: Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net>
Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 17:07
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MONDAY 9 DECEMBER: Indicative Poll on Mechanisms

Thanks Emily.

I have completed my survey responses (thanks for confirming). Can you please advise if I will have to fill in another survey again? If so, can you please send me a copy of my responses? I don’t have a copy the text I added on the comments section.

I have reviewed the draft report again and I have added a couple of comments there that I hope can be reviewed to be addressed as part of the text.

I made some comments about including a note about reviewing the possible roles of the ICANN Foundation and its relationship with the ICANN board, if that mechanism is selected. We sure don’t have to discuss it here, but to highlight possible conflicts, possible overlaps.
I’ve made a comment about the overhead. I am sorry if the group wrapped up that issue, but I think that highlighting that recommended an overhead can actually help to close the discussion about possible differences in costs of a mechanism. If independent of the mechanism, a limit for the maximum cost is set, then the implementing process can look at how best to operationalize it -to maximize community benefit-.
I think is important to review the text of the sections when the CCWG is not offering a recommendation, so that the discussion conducted is reflected. In some cases the text used seems to imply that we are ok either way, and if my memory serves it was more about not been able to reach an agreement in some cases while in other cases it was about how, as long as the other requirements were taken into consideration it was ok. Maybe a nuance of language, but one that we need to take into account.

I am a bit concern about the timing for the publication of these report, as the discussions about the change of ownership for the PIR may have an impact on how the outcomes of this effort is welcomed or not by the community. I think it will be important to highlight somewhere in the document, the lengthy, inclusive and reflective nature of these discussions, and how much time we have invested into reaching this stage.

Regards,

Sylvia

________________________________________________________________________

Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation [apnic.foundation]

6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199

* Love trees. Print only if necessary.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 2:47 am
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MONDAY 9 DECEMBER: Indicative Poll on Mechanisms

Dear all,

The leadership team is extending the deadline for this poll to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate. The new deadline is Monday 9 December at 23:59 UTC. The poll is available at: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=1db40f7xlo0xj [input.icann.org].

We are using a new survey tool for this poll and some of you have reported usability challenges with the tool. If you are unsure if your response was recorded, please email staff and we can confirm. Apologies for any inconvenience. We are tracking all feedback so that the experience will be better for future polls.

Kind regards,

Emily

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 08:46
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: DEADLINE TOMORROW: Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019

Dear all,

As a reminder, the deadline to complete the indicative poll is tomorrow 3 December at 23:59 UTC.

The poll is available at: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=1db40f7xlo0xj [input.icann.org].

Kind regards,

Emily

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 27 November 2019 at 13:26
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Re: Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019

Dear all,

Staff recently received a question from a CCWG member about how to rank the different options in question 5 of the poll: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=1db40f7xlo0xj [input.icann.org]. In case others are having difficulty, please find instructions below.

You will see that each mechanism listed is preceded by a number. The mechanism you rank as number 1 is the one you most prefer being recommended to the ICANN Board and number 3 is your least preferred mechanism. To change the order of mechanisms A, B, and C in the list, click to highlight the row you want to move, and then use the up and down arrows to the right to move the row up or down. Make the necessary adjustments to display the three mechanisms in the order of your preference.

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to reach out directly to staff support.

Kind regards,

Emily

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Friday, 22 November 2019 at 15:04
To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
Subject: Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 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 [input.icann.org]. 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@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976