P.S. I forgot to add that the SSAC Formal Recommendation #1 essentially says the same thing about feasibility study in answer to Question #4: . Recommendation 1: The SSAC recommends that, following the completion and submission of the CCWG’s report, the next step in the process be to have an outside expert with a demonstrated track-record in designing funding programs review the report, comment on its finding and recommendations, and use it as a basis to inform the Board on the design of a grant making process for the auction proceeds that implements grant making best practices. This step should be undertaken before the Board formally considers the CCWG’s Final Report as its advice would assist the Board in its consideration of the CCWG recommendations. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:48 PM To: 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas@icann.org>; Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Cc: 'sdelbianco@netchoice.org' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC Thanks Emily. I do need to add one item to the agenda as discussed below. I am a bit confused by the notes on the CCWG discussion relative to Comments to Question 1 filed by the BC. This is on page 7 of the Comments to Question 1. The BC comment was to amend the Final Report to include a recommendation for a REQUIRED feasibility study comparing the relative costs of the mechanisms that the WG will recommend. The reference to feasibility study on page 12 of the report is a reference to the idea that the CCWG recognizes that the ICANN Board “may” conduct a feasibility assessment. This is not a Recommendation and it is not even Implementation Guidance. The IPC also made this recommendation – perhaps in response to a different question. The notes from the last call refer to the status of a feasibility assessment as “Implementation Guidance” Thus, the CCWG apparently agreed in the last call that this constituted Implementation Guidance (and did not adopt it as a WG Recommendation). The language of the proposed Final Report does not track with the CCWG Agreement that the need for a feasibility study constitutes Implementation Guidance. Therefore, it is indeed an Action Item for the language on page 12 of the proposed Final Report to be revised to change “the ICANN Board MAY conduct a feasibility assessment…” to “… the Implementation Review Team is advised to conduct a feasibility assessment” or something similar. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 7:35 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Continuation of review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report, beginning with Question #2, Comment #4 (see attached public comment review templates) 3. AOB * Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this meeting, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ 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.