Fwd: FW: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020
Dear Robert, Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you kindly provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG? Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about recommendation 1 that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later than Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag? I hope all is well with you and your family! Kind regards, Erika Erika Mann Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling +32 498 121354 On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas" <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote: Hi John, Thanks for your reply. Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed Final Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not object to any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is unfortunate that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to the exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so that the work of the CCWG can be concluded." Would it be possible to provide additional detail about SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately clear how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the SSAC more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in advance for any additional clarification you can provide. As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list. Kind regards, Emily On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A. The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send the report, but you do not have consensus. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u3...
Dear Erika, What the SSAC has said is that it does not object to any of the recommendations. This is subtly different to saying that the SSAC supports the recommendations. Specifically, the SSAC does not wish to delay the process within the CCWG further and wishes to see the report finalized and delivered. Further deliberation within the CCWG is unlikely to be good use of everyone’s time and energy. Rather, what the SSAC recommended in its response was: “... 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." As Emily stated in her email below ”As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list. In this context, the SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral rather than agreeing or disagreeing. This may well enable the group to claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should not be listed as one of the supporting organizations. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org On 24 May 2020, at 7:38, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear Robert,
Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you kindly provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG? Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about recommendation 1 that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later than Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag?
I hope all is well with you and your family!
Kind regards, Erika
Erika Mann Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling +32 498 121354
On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas" <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply.
Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed Final Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not object to any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is unfortunate that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to the exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so that the work of the CCWG can be concluded."
Would it be possible to provide additional detail about SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately clear how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the SSAC more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in advance for any additional clarification you can provide.
As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list.
Kind regards, Emily
On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A.
The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send the report, but you do not have consensus.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u3...
Dear Robert - Thank you for clarifying SSAC position, summarized at the end of your email clearly in stating: "SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral rather than agreeing or disagreeing. This may well enable the group to claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should not be listed as one of the supporting organizations. We will proceed accordingly. Kind regards, Erika Erika Mann erika@erikamann.com +32 498 121354 On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:50 PM Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Dear Erika,
What the SSAC has said is that it does not object to any of the recommendations. This is subtly different to saying that the SSAC supports the recommendations.
Specifically, the SSAC does not wish to delay the process within the CCWG further and wishes to see the report finalized and delivered. Further deliberation within the CCWG is unlikely to be good use of everyone’s time and energy. Rather, what the SSAC recommended in its response was:
“... 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."
As Emily stated in her email below ”As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list.
In this context, the SSAC’s position may best be seen as neutral rather than agreeing or disagreeing. This may well enable the group to claim consensus (but not full consensus), noting that the SSAC should not be listed as one of the supporting organizations.
regards,
Robert
-- Robert Guerra Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org
On 24 May 2020, at 7:38, Erika Mann wrote:
Dear Robert,
Noting John Levine's recent resignation from the CCWG, can you kindly provide input as the remaining SSAC representative on the CCWG? Specifically, is there any objection to the Co-Chairs' consensus designation at this stage or concerns from the SSAC about recommendation 1 that the the CCWG should be aware of? Can you kindly respond no later than Wednesday 27 May if there are any issues to flag?
I hope all is well with you and your family!
Kind regards, Erika
Erika Mann Senior Policy Advisor Covington & Burling +32 498 121354
On 08/05/2020, 15:04, "Emily Barabas" <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply.
Taking a look at the SSAC comment on the proposed Final Report, the SSAC provided the following input: "The SSAC does not object to any of the 12 recommendation in the report but feels that it is unfortunate that they were not able to be more specific, especially in regard to the exact mechanism to be employed. Nevertheless, the SSAC supports the finalization of this report following the Public Comment period so that the work of the CCWG can be concluded."
Would it be possible to provide additional detail about SSAC's concern regarding Recommendation 1, as it is not immediately clear how the recommendation is inconsistent with the SSAC's position stated above? Is there an edit that the SSAC can suggest that would make the SSAC more comfortable with the language in the recommendation? Thank you in advance for any additional clarification you can provide.
As a reminder to the group, "consensus" is defined "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." The Co-Chairs will use this definition as a point of reference as feedback in received on the list.
Kind regards, Emily
On 07/05/2020, 23:01, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG recommends that the Board select either mechanism A or mechanism B for the allocation of auction proceeds, taking into account the stronger preference expressed by CCWG members for mechanism A.
The SSAC does not agree with this. You can send the report, but you do not have consensus.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u3...
participants (2)
-
Erika Mann -
Robert Guerra