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. 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
Thanks Emily. As an initial question re the revisions, I don’t know why we still have text related to Board advice on “Scenario C2” if that scenario is equivalent to Mechanism D which has been rejected by the CCWG. All of the language relative to Scenario C2 reprinted from the Board advice, as previously commented, is just confusing to the public. Could someone please clarify? Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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.
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.
?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.
Sam L. - we had discussed this before but then reverted back to the less precise term because of different reasons. If we have an agreement between us, we can use the internationally more narrowly defined terms. Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 23, 2019, at 12:52 AM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Sam, In my mind, ANY term is likely to have some problems, so I agree that we need to pick a term but then qualify what we mean. In most cases where we use the term, we also qualify or expand it with expressions like :under-represented countries" or "underserved populations" As has been pointed, where we are targetting such populations, we are also aiming at disadvantaged populations that may reside within a higher-income contry. So pick something, but then with a foot note of more formal definition make it clear what we mean. Also note that we are not RESTRICTING grants to such groups but merely targeting them. Alan At 22/11/2019 06:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Alan, We are pretty much on the same page here. The overall text makes it clear that we are not restricting grants (/even "baskets" would involve more than one (-:/ ) My simple solution would be a term in the glossary (or, as you say, a footnote). Sam On 11/22/2019 9:30 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Sam, In my mind, ANY term is likely to have some problems, so I agree that we need to pick a term but then qualify what we mean. In most cases where we use the term, we also qualify or expand it with expressions like :under-represented countries" or "underserved populations"
As has been pointed, where we are targetting such populations, we are also aiming at disadvantaged populations that may reside within a higher-income contry.
So pick something, but then with a foot note of more formal definition make it clear what we mean.
Also note that we are not RESTRICTING grants to such groups but merely targeting them.
Alan
<deleted>
That's also an arguement for not using a term that has a very specific carefully defined meaning. No matter how much you tell people you are using a different meaning, the base one will be presumed. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 22, 2019 9:37:57 PM EST, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote: Alan, We are pretty much on the same page here. The overall text makes it clear that we are not restricting grants (even "baskets" would involve more than one (-: ) My simple solution would be a term in the glossary (or, as you say, a footnote). Sam On 11/22/2019 9:30 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Sam, In my mind, ANY term is likely to have some problems, so I agree that we need to pick a term but then qualify what we mean. In most cases where we use the term, we also qualify or expand it with expressions like :under-represented countries" or "underserved populations" As has been pointed, where we are targetting such populations, we are also aiming at disadvantaged populations that may reside within a higher-income contry. So pick something, but then with a foot note of more formal definition make it clear what we mean. Also note that we are not RESTRICTING grants to such groups but merely targeting them. Alan <deleted>
Anne - if there are remaining inconsistencies, we will certainly review them and change them before we publish the second PC. I reviewed the text completely and I must admit I did not notice this particular inconsistency. Maybe it relates to a direct quote(s) and in these case we decided to keep the original quote. If this is the case, we can certainly add a footnote. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thanks Emily. As an initial question re the revisions, I don’t know why we still have text related to Board advice on “Scenario C2” if that scenario is equivalent to Mechanism D which has been rejected by the CCWG. All of the language relative to Scenario C2 reprinted from the Board advice, as previously commented, is just confusing to the public.
Could someone please clarify? Thank you, Anne
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019
[EXTERNAL] 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. 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
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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Two small suggestions: RE Page 11: For Table: Division of Responsibilities - Mechanisms A, B, and C. In the Table, for Mechanism B “Score successful and unsuccessful applicants”, would not better wording simply be “Independent Panel, jointly convened”, rather than “Depends on Division of Responsibility”? RE: Page 14: “ICANN Monitoring and Evaluation” reads “If part or all of the mechanism is external, ICANN should have an established process for monitoring and evaluating…”. Since this should be true for the mechanism whether it is external or internal, could this simply say: “The mechanism should have an established process for monitoring and evaluating…”? Sam L.
Hi Erika and Anne, Thanks for the question. The text in this section quotes directly the response that ICANN org sent the CCWG in response to the CCWG’s question about the relative costs of mechanisms A and C (see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respon...). It quoted without omitting any text so that readers can see the full context. Would it address the issue to add a footnote stating that if mechanism C is ultimately selected, the CCWG anticipates that the implementation will look like scenario C1 and not C2? Kind regards, Emily From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Saturday, 23 November 2019 at 09:21 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 Anne - if there are remaining inconsistencies, we will certainly review them and change them before we publish the second PC. I reviewed the text completely and I must admit I did not notice this particular inconsistency. Maybe it relates to a direct quote(s) and in these case we decided to keep the original quote. If this is the case, we can certainly add a footnote. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone On Nov 22, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Emily. As an initial question re the revisions, I don’t know why we still have text related to Board advice on “Scenario C2” if that scenario is equivalent to Mechanism D which has been rejected by the CCWG. All of the language relative to Scenario C2 reprinted from the Board advice, as previously commented, is just confusing to the public. Could someone please clarify? Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Emily and Erika, Yes I think we would have to say that Mechanism C means Scenario C1 where the Foundation administration is shared with ICANN, thus eliminating the costs that are listed as being associated only with Scenario C2. Otherwise, this is quite confusing as to relative costs among the mechanisms. Thank you, Anne From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 9:04 AM To: erika@erikamann.com; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Erika and Anne, Thanks for the question. The text in this section quotes directly the response that ICANN org sent the CCWG in response to the CCWG’s question about the relative costs of mechanisms A and C (see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respon...). It quoted without omitting any text so that readers can see the full context. Would it address the issue to add a footnote stating that if mechanism C is ultimately selected, the CCWG anticipates that the implementation will look like scenario C1 and not C2? Kind regards, Emily From: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> Date: Saturday, 23 November 2019 at 09:21 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 Anne - if there are remaining inconsistencies, we will certainly review them and change them before we publish the second PC. I reviewed the text completely and I must admit I did not notice this particular inconsistency. Maybe it relates to a direct quote(s) and in these case we decided to keep the original quote. If this is the case, we can certainly add a footnote. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone On Nov 22, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Emily. As an initial question re the revisions, I don’t know why we still have text related to Board advice on “Scenario C2” if that scenario is equivalent to Mechanism D which has been rejected by the CCWG. All of the language relative to Scenario C2 reprinted from the Board advice, as previously commented, is just confusing to the public. Could someone please clarify? Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
To all CCWG Members and Participants, In determining how to respond to the poll, I am really struggling with the Assumption that (as expressed by the ICANN org comments on page 9 of the Proposed Final Report), “The workforce costs, except where identified below, are presumed to be the same across all mechanisms.” I would appreciate any and all comments on this particular assumption given that Mechanism B collaboration with a pre-existing non-profit for administration of the grant-making function strikes me as a very different type of structure which does not contemplate “staffing up” as would be necessary with Mechanism A or Mechanism C. Please advise. And if Xavier could elaborate as to why Mechanism B requires just as much in Workforce cost (as opposed to professional fees that would be payable to the third party non-profit), that would be helpful. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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.
Anne, in my reading, what we are saying is that the ongoing operational costs will be relatively similar for all mechanisms because all will have to do approximately the same work and we have no reason to believe that labour or overhead costs will be higher or lower for any of them. Yes, in B we will use an established organization for some part of the work, but that organization does not necessarily have surplus labour waiting for our contract, so they may have to staff up as well. And even if they don't, the ongoing costs will be similar (all they save are the onboarding and possibly training costs). I am assuming that for this calculation, we are ignoring markup that a third party may add to their bill, possibly increasing the costs for outsourced work. In all cases, some labour may should up as salaries and overhead, and some may show up as contract costs (just as some of the policy people who work on these WGs are salaried in ICANN's emply, and some are contract folks. Alan At 22/11/2019 06:31 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: To all CCWG Members and Participants, In determining how to respond to the poll, I am really struggling with the Assumption that (as expressed by the ICANN org comments on page 9 of the Proposed Final Report), “The workforce costs, except where identified below, are presumed to be the same across all mechanisms.” I would appreciate any and all comments on this particular assumption given that Mechanism B collaboration with a pre-existing non-profit for administration of the grant-making function strikes me as a very different type of structure which does not contemplate “staffing up” as would be necessary with Mechanism A or Mechanism C. Please advise. And if Xavier could elaborate as to why Mechanism B requires just as much in Workforce cost (as opposed to professional fees that would be payable to the third party non-profit), that would be helpful. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Alan. As I see it, onboarding and training are pretty big costs and that is why I was interested to know the estimated fees for Mechanism B. Are we saying the CCWG has not actually developed any fee quotes for Mechanism B at this stage? Thank you, Anne From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:31 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, in my reading, what we are saying is that the ongoing operational costs will be relatively similar for all mechanisms because all will have to do approximately the same work and we have no reason to believe that labour or overhead costs will be higher or lower for any of them. Yes, in B we will use an established organization for some part of the work, but that organization does not necessarily have surplus labour waiting for our contract, so they may have to staff up as well. And even if they don't, the ongoing costs will be similar (all they save are the onboarding and possibly training costs). I am assuming that for this calculation, we are ignoring markup that a third party may add to their bill, possibly increasing the costs for outsourced work. In all cases, some labour may should up as salaries and overhead, and some may show up as contract costs (just as some of the policy people who work on these WGs are salaried in ICANN's emply, and some are contract folks. Alan At 22/11/2019 06:31 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: To all CCWG Members and Participants, In determining how to respond to the poll, I am really struggling with the Assumption that (as expressed by the ICANN org comments on page 9 of the Proposed Final Report), “The workforce costs, except where identified below, are presumed to be the same across all mechanisms.†I would appreciate any and all comments on this particular assumption given that Mechanism B collaboration with a pre-existing non-profit for administration of the grant-making function strikes me as a very different type of structure which does not contemplate “staffing up†as would be necessary with Mechanism A or Mechanism C. Please advise. And if Xavier could elaborate as to why Mechanism B requires just as much in Workforce cost (as opposed to professional fees that would be payable to the third party non-profit), that would be helpful. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:05 AM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
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. 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. 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
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Emily Barabas -
Erika Mann -
Sam Lanfranco -
Samantha Eisner