?Thanks Sam. This suggestion makes a lot of sense. ____ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 3:45 PM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 All, As a development economist I want to raise a small point. The term "developing countries" is used nine times in the Draft. While the World Bank and others have dropped the term, it remains acceptable as a descriptor, but there may be a problem for its use here. In some instances disagreements could arise with regard to eligibility to apply based on what decides who is, or is not, a developing country. Other settings now tend to use the formal term Low- and-Medium-Income-Countries (LMIC) where countries are classified by the World Bank (WB). Other organizations (UN, IMF, WHO, etc.) sometimes produce slightly different rankings. I suggest that we either adopt LMIC, or state that the term developing countries means LMIC, or pick another reference list. We do not want a Mechanism to have to struggle, in some instances, with what is or is not a qualifying applicant country. (I note this still does not deal with occupied territories, breakaway states, and the other complexities of modern nationhood :-( ) Sam L.