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@lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 22:33 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao@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@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:34 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; erika@erikamann.com; Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Cc: Ching Chiao <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] [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@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 19:33 To: "erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>" <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao@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@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@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Cc: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao@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%20...>). 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.