Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments
Phil, thank you for your questions. As the main author of the paper, I am happy to respond. The idea for a discussion paper was raised during the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion as well as the workshop as a next step to allow for additional input from those that were not able to participate or provide input during the sessions in Buenos Aires. This proposed approach was also shared by Jonathan during his recent updates to the GNSO Council. A CCWG is typically open to anyone interested to participate – there is no requirement to be an ICANN regular or member of an SO/AC, although recent CCWGs have, in addition to participations, SO/AC appointed members which have a particular communication and co-ordination role with respect to their SO/AC. As you point out there may not be any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and others, but the paper wanted to make clear that anyone should be encouraged to provide input and feedback. The issues in section 4 are intended to be a starting point for discussions and are largely based on issues raised during the BA sessions as well as my personal experiences with the development of charters for (C)WGs. It is the hope that these, in addition to other points that may be raised in response to the public comment forum, will help to inform the drafting team deliberations. With regards to the ‘other approach’ as you may recall, one of the questions that was asked during the High Interest Topic Discussion in Buenos Aires was whether those participating were supportive of a CCWG or whether alternative approaches should be considered. Those that participated seemed generally supportive of a CCWG to address this topic, but staff did not want to exclude the possibility that there could be new suggestions or ideas in response to the public comment forum from those that may not have been able to participate in the BA meeting that the community may want to consider. This is in no way intended to undermine the CCWG approach but merely to allow those that may not have been able to have their voice heard before to share ideas and suggestions that may warrant further consideration. I understand that the timing of the public comment forum is not ideal and consideration may need to be given to extending it beyond the Dublin meeting, but the hope was that the feedback provided would enable the community to review the feedback provided and embark on the next steps in this process during the ICANN meeting in Dublin. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday 10 September 2015 11:04 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments Point of inquiry: Was publication of this notice triggered by Council support for a CCWG to determine criteria for utilization of new gTLD auction funds, or was it triggered independently? The referenced Discussion paper, in Section 3.1.4, seems to state that it was suggested at the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion and the Workshop held in BA and is not directly related to the CCWG process. The discussion paper, in its introduction, calls for participation “from both within and outside the ICANN community”. That seems at odds with a CCWG, which is of course made up of ICANN community members. It also seems to echo elements of the email that Steve Crocker sent when he first learned of potential support for a CCWG. I also remain unclear about whether there is any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and other Internet-related interests or entities who do not participate in it -- given that ICANN participation is open to everyone without barriers as well as the very high physical and remote attendance at contemporary ICANN meetings. I am also curious regarding the origin of the Issues to be Considered and Addressed catalogued in section 4 of the paper. I don’t have any specific objection to any of them but wonder where they came from – and whether the list of potential issues shouldn’t properly come from those who engage in this comment process and a future CCWG. I further note this part of the Notice: Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. (emphasis added) It is not clear whether “another approach” refers to the Charter drafting team, or to the CCWG itself. If it is the latter (which seems more logical, as every CCWG needs a Charter drafted) then it would seem that there may be some intent to undermine a CCWG proceeding. In any event, I think this assertion needs clarification. Finally, I am curious about what prompted the publication of this notice at this time, as it sets a comment deadline of October 18 – which is the starting Sunday of the Dublin ICANN meeting – which means that the comments cannot possibly be evaluated in time to inform any discussion of this topic in Dublin. The disposition of $60-million+ is a very important topic and asking the community to submit well-considered input at a time when so many remain heavily engaged on stewardship and accountability seems questionable. Further, I was under the impression that there was a general policy against setting deadlines that coincided with ICANN public meetings. I would appreciate some response to this request for clarification on the points raised above. Thanks and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:44 AM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-e... Open Date:8 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC Close Date:18 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC Staff Report Due:1 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC Comments close in 38 Days Submit Comment to Forum<mailto:comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15@icann.org> Comments Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/ Brief Overview Purpose: This is a discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] on the proceeds from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) strings. This paper calls for broad, open and inclusive public comment and encourages participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community. Current Status: This paper aims to capture the information and input on this topic to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process to determine next steps in relation to new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Since the launch of the new gTLD Program, numerous suggestions have been made, such as during the ICANN public forum sessions at ICANN meetings, on how new gTLD auction proceeds should be spent including; suggestions that the funds should be donated to charitable organizations, support for applicants in future rounds, programs to promote new gTLDs and consumer protection, the creation of an ICANN trust, to returning the money to the applicants from the current round. However, it was not until March 2015 that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) started discussing a possible process for facilitating the conversation around new gTLD auction proceeds during ICANN52 such as a Cross-Community Working Group (CCSG). The discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] aims to capture the information and input on new gTLD Auction Proceeds to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process, such as outreach, participation and ensuring a focus on framework development, to determine next steps. Broad, open and inclusive public comment input is sought and participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community is encouraged. Section II: Background The new gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC. It was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, these auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds through dialogue with the community. Board, staff, and community are expected to be working together in designing and participating in the next steps addressing the use of new gTLD auction proceeds. 13 contention sets have been resolved via ICANN Auction since June 2014. The total net proceeds to date are $58.8 million USD. Details of the proceeds can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds. Section III: Relevant Resources * New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] * For more information about ICANN and its work, visit www.ICANN.org<https://www.icann.org/> * For more information about the new gTLD program associated with these proceeds, visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ Section IV: Additional Information Section V: Reports Staff Contact Marika Konings policy-staff@icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thank you Marika for the quick response and helpful clarifications. On the timing and length of the comment period, while it may be useful to get people thinking about the issues to be considered before Dublin, there cannot possibly be a staff report on those comments completed in time for Dublin. Again, I was under the impression that there was a general policy against having comment periods end during, or just before or after, ICANN Public Meetings. So I would personally hope that consideration is given to extending the comment period, given how busy we will all be preparing for the many other important discussions/issues already in play for that meeting. With best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:34 PM To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments Phil, thank you for your questions. As the main author of the paper, I am happy to respond. The idea for a discussion paper was raised during the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion as well as the workshop as a next step to allow for additional input from those that were not able to participate or provide input during the sessions in Buenos Aires. This proposed approach was also shared by Jonathan during his recent updates to the GNSO Council. A CCWG is typically open to anyone interested to participate - there is no requirement to be an ICANN regular or member of an SO/AC, although recent CCWGs have, in addition to participations, SO/AC appointed members which have a particular communication and co-ordination role with respect to their SO/AC. As you point out there may not be any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and others, but the paper wanted to make clear that anyone should be encouraged to provide input and feedback. The issues in section 4 are intended to be a starting point for discussions and are largely based on issues raised during the BA sessions as well as my personal experiences with the development of charters for (C)WGs. It is the hope that these, in addition to other points that may be raised in response to the public comment forum, will help to inform the drafting team deliberations. With regards to the 'other approach' as you may recall, one of the questions that was asked during the High Interest Topic Discussion in Buenos Aires was whether those participating were supportive of a CCWG or whether alternative approaches should be considered. Those that participated seemed generally supportive of a CCWG to address this topic, but staff did not want to exclude the possibility that there could be new suggestions or ideas in response to the public comment forum from those that may not have been able to participate in the BA meeting that the community may want to consider. This is in no way intended to undermine the CCWG approach but merely to allow those that may not have been able to have their voice heard before to share ideas and suggestions that may warrant further consideration. I understand that the timing of the public comment forum is not ideal and consideration may need to be given to extending it beyond the Dublin meeting, but the hope was that the feedback provided would enable the community to review the feedback provided and embark on the next steps in this process during the ICANN meeting in Dublin. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday 10 September 2015 11:04 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments Point of inquiry: Was publication of this notice triggered by Council support for a CCWG to determine criteria for utilization of new gTLD auction funds, or was it triggered independently? The referenced Discussion paper, in Section 3.1.4, seems to state that it was suggested at the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion and the Workshop held in BA and is not directly related to the CCWG process. The discussion paper, in its introduction, calls for participation "from both within and outside the ICANN community". That seems at odds with a CCWG, which is of course made up of ICANN community members. It also seems to echo elements of the email that Steve Crocker sent when he first learned of potential support for a CCWG. I also remain unclear about whether there is any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and other Internet-related interests or entities who do not participate in it -- given that ICANN participation is open to everyone without barriers as well as the very high physical and remote attendance at contemporary ICANN meetings. I am also curious regarding the origin of the Issues to be Considered and Addressed catalogued in section 4 of the paper. I don't have any specific objection to any of them but wonder where they came from - and whether the list of potential issues shouldn't properly come from those who engage in this comment process and a future CCWG. I further note this part of the Notice: Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. (emphasis added) It is not clear whether "another approach" refers to the Charter drafting team, or to the CCWG itself. If it is the latter (which seems more logical, as every CCWG needs a Charter drafted) then it would seem that there may be some intent to undermine a CCWG proceeding. In any event, I think this assertion needs clarification. Finally, I am curious about what prompted the publication of this notice at this time, as it sets a comment deadline of October 18 - which is the starting Sunday of the Dublin ICANN meeting - which means that the comments cannot possibly be evaluated in time to inform any discussion of this topic in Dublin. The disposition of $60-million+ is a very important topic and asking the community to submit well-considered input at a time when so many remain heavily engaged on stewardship and accountability seems questionable. Further, I was under the impression that there was a general policy against setting deadlines that coincided with ICANN public meetings. I would appreciate some response to this request for clarification on the points raised above. Thanks and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:44 AM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-e... Open Date:8 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC Close Date:18 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC Staff Report Due:1 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC Comments close in 38 Days Submit Comment to Forum<mailto:comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15@icann.org> Comments Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/ Brief Overview Purpose: This is a discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] on the proceeds from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) strings. This paper calls for broad, open and inclusive public comment and encourages participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community. Current Status: This paper aims to capture the information and input on this topic to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process to determine next steps in relation to new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Since the launch of the new gTLD Program, numerous suggestions have been made, such as during the ICANN public forum sessions at ICANN meetings, on how new gTLD auction proceeds should be spent including; suggestions that the funds should be donated to charitable organizations, support for applicants in future rounds, programs to promote new gTLDs and consumer protection, the creation of an ICANN trust, to returning the money to the applicants from the current round. However, it was not until March 2015 that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) started discussing a possible process for facilitating the conversation around new gTLD auction proceeds during ICANN52 such as a Cross-Community Working Group (CCSG). The discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] aims to capture the information and input on new gTLD Auction Proceeds to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process, such as outreach, participation and ensuring a focus on framework development, to determine next steps. Broad, open and inclusive public comment input is sought and participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community is encouraged. Section II: Background The new gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC. It was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, these auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds through dialogue with the community. Board, staff, and community are expected to be working together in designing and participating in the next steps addressing the use of new gTLD auction proceeds. 13 contention sets have been resolved via ICANN Auction since June 2014. The total net proceeds to date are $58.8 million USD. Details of the proceeds can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds. Section III: Relevant Resources * New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-0...> [PDF, 455 KB] * For more information about ICANN and its work, visit www.ICANN.org<https://www.icann.org/> * For more information about the new gTLD program associated with these proceeds, visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ Section IV: Additional Information Section V: Reports Staff Contact Marika Konings policy-staff@icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (2)
-
Marika Konings -
Phil Corwin