Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MONDAY 9 DECEMBER: Indicative Poll on Mechanisms
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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D...> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia&d=DwMGaQ&c...> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
Thanks Emily. Regards, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 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: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 1:17 pm To: "sylvia@apnic.net" <sylvia@apnic.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MONDAY 9 DECEMBER: Indicative Poll on Mechanisms 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D...> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia&d=DwMGaQ&c...> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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]<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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
Dear Sylvia, Thank you for your review of the proposed Final Report and detailed comments in response to the draft. The leadership team has carefully reviewed and discussed the input, and I wanted to provide feedback about the edits we made to the report, as well as items that were left unchanged in the latest draft. - Where your comments suggested minor text edits or clarifications, staff went ahead and incorporated the changes into the latest version of the document. - In cases where you suggested changes to the text that has been agreed to and closed by the CCWG or where the CCWG agreed that decisions on a particular issue would be deferred to the implementation phase, at this stage, the leadership team recommends not to re-open closed items. We will have another chance to review the text once the Second Comment Period closes and when we will review these comments. - Where suggested edits would change language provided by the ICANN Board or Org about specific requirements or restrictions on the mechanism or use of funds, we didn't make any edits. If we would want to do this, we would have to re-open discussions with the Board and ICANN Org and we recommend not to do this - at least not at this stage. If you believe strongly that there are areas where the text is not clear enough, where key points are missing, or where there are items the CCWG still needs to consider but has not yet discussed, it is still possible to suggest specific edits for the CCWG to consider. However, given that the CCWG is planning to publish the proposed Final Report for public comment very soon, it will be easiest to share these items as a public comment that the CCWG can discuss following the public comment period. Please see additional responses in blue below. If you would like to discuss further, please let me know and we can set up a conversion to go over your feedback in greater detail. Thanks again for your thorough review. Kind regards, Erika On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:17 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D...>
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia&d=DwMGaQ&c...> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...> .
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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...> .
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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-3D1db40f7xlo0xj&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=eKaOgBFkpufDCz3DOXsHPPkBdvyyqKQRU4R1htZS1tk&s=IdnjvGJlZVDueHjyBJjiWWMgFddyAiC_iOxRftDheRU&e=>*. 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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-3D1db40f7xlo0xj&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=eKaOgBFkpufDCz3DOXsHPPkBdvyyqKQRU4R1htZS1tk&s=IdnjvGJlZVDueHjyBJjiWWMgFddyAiC_iOxRftDheRU&e=>* . 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Erika. ———— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia<x-apple-data-detectors://5> | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100<tel:+61%207%203858%203100> | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199<tel:3858%203199> * Love trees. Print only if necessary. On 19 Dec 2019, at 3:28 pm, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote: Dear Sylvia, Thank you for your review of the proposed Final Report and detailed comments in response to the draft. The leadership team has carefully reviewed and discussed the input, and I wanted to provide feedback about the edits we made to the report, as well as items that were left unchanged in the latest draft. * Where your comments suggested minor text edits or clarifications, staff went ahead and incorporated the changes into the latest version of the document. * In cases where you suggested changes to the text that has been agreed to and closed by the CCWG or where the CCWG agreed that decisions on a particular issue would be deferred to the implementation phase, at this stage, the leadership team recommends not to re-open closed items. We will have another chance to review the text once the Second Comment Period closes and when we will review these comments. * Where suggested edits would change language provided by the ICANN Board or Org about specific requirements or restrictions on the mechanism or use of funds, we didn't make any edits. If we would want to do this, we would have to re-open discussions with the Board and ICANN Org and we recommend not to do this - at least not at this stage. If you believe strongly that there are areas where the text is not clear enough, where key points are missing, or where there are items the CCWG still needs to consider but has not yet discussed, it is still possible to suggest specific edits for the CCWG to consider. However, given that the CCWG is planning to publish the proposed Final Report for public comment very soon, it will be easiest to share these items as a public comment that the CCWG can discuss following the public comment period. Please see additional responses in blue below. If you would like to discuss further, please let me know and we can set up a conversion to go over your feedback in greater detail. Thanks again for your thorough review. Kind regards, Erika On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:17 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 17:07 To: 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] 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<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation [apnic.foundation]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D...> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia&d=DwMGaQ&c...> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 2:47 am To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 08:46 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 27 November 2019 at 13:26 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__input.icann.org_go-3Fiv-...>. 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<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 22 November 2019 at 15:04 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto: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]<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 _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Emily Barabas -
Erika Mann -
Sylvia Cadena