Thanks, Marie-Noémie for your input. The leadership team reviewed your comments but noted that some of these appeared duplicative (possibility to (potentially)) and/or changed the meaning of what the CCWG originally agreed (may receive vs. will receive) and as such opted not to make these changes. As no further comments were received, the leadership team will go ahead and submit the CCWG response as circulated on 27 April to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika From: "marienoemie.marques@orange.com" <marienoemie.marques@orange.com> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 14:35 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board Dear all, First of all, may I apologize for not participating to the last conf call (I was traveling) … I would like to make two comments / proposals and let you see to what extent it suits you all. My kindest regards, 1) The Memo of June 2016 on Legal and Financial Considerations for Inclusion in Charter specifies (see 5. Conflict of Interest considerations): “Similarly, a commitment from those who participated in the designing of the process to refrain from applying for an award could be a limitation that the CCWG imposes on its membership. “ This “recommendation / commitment possibility” would lead me to withdraw my participation from the CCWG, as I would not like to be responsible for an potential loss of opportunity for my company. if such a commitment is introduced – I would rather choose to be an observer and not anymore a participant. This point needs therefore to be clarified. For this reason, I believe that the following should not be more affirmative, creating 2 sentences for the sake of readibility: ‘What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?’ will be part of the CCWG deliberations. Especially the board suggestion that there should be a clear separation of those deciding general direction and those receiving funds will receive further clarification. The CCWG is currently operating on the basis that as long as CCWG members / participants declare their intention or possibility to (potentially) apply for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds once the proposed mechanism has been approved by the ICANN Board, this provides for sufficient transparency and accountability in this stage of the process, as the decisions for final funding allocation will not be taken by this CCWG but by the mechanism defined. Such mechanism will be subject to a different conflict of interest, appropriate for its implementation. 2) Otherwise the letter seems just fine to me. May I suggest one sentence for completing the paragraph on overhead: “Concerning the suggested nominal goal for the overhead is no more than 5% by the ICANN Board, the CCWG will definitely consider this input when it considers the relevant charter questions as well as the elements the Board has suggested the proposed mechanism and/or process should include. Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended as a result of the CCWG deliberations and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board.” Should this occur, the CCWG will accordingly / expeditiously inform the ICANN Board. [would this precision be useful / relevant / opportune ?] Marie-Noémie De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Marika Konings Envoyé : jeudi 27 avril 2017 19:51 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board Dear All, Please find attached for final review the proposed response to the ICANN Board. Note that I’ve accepted all previous edits so you will only see in redline the changes as a result of today’s discussion. You are requested to provide any further comments and/or edits by Thursday 4 May at the latest. Following that, the leadership team will go ahead and submit this letter to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.