<html><body><span style="display:block;" class="xfm_29280084"><div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">H</span>i<span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1"> Rafik,</span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">I'm fine with the comment.</span><br data-mce-bogus="1"/></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1"><br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">Best,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">Olga</span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">18 февраля 2020, 02:05:10, от "Rafik Dammak" <</span><a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Arial;">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;">>:</span></span></i></div>
<div><br/></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #cccccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="display:block;">
<div>
<div>hi all,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>for some reasons, this draft comment <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eyGGPIFFMhVbEpIZQexgXkKO67fU33PZfv7G8HVY6_c/edit" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eyGGPIFFMhVbEpIZQexgXkKO67fU33PZfv7G8HVY6_c/edit</a> got stuck in limbo while it was shared a while ago. it is regarding auctions proceeds and responding to the questions asked by the team about the preferred mechanism.</div>
<div>I already reached staff to give some time for late submission but they are already working on staff summary. so I would like PC to reach decision within the next 24 hours if possible. We can also ask Julf as our rep to that CCWG for feedback.</div>
<div>the draft comment is quite short. you can find at the bottom the email sent by Thato with the questions and issues raised in the draft report.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<div><br/></div>
<br/><div>
<div>Le jeu. 6 févr. 2020 à 06:43, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :</div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #cccccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div>hi all,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>the deadline for submission is the 14th February. please review the draft comment.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<br/><div>
<div>Le jeu. 16 janv. 2020 à 13:44, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :</div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #cccccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>Hi all,
<div><br/></div>
<div>this draft comment is our pipeline for review and endorsement. Thato is asking for help for editing and proofreading, also comments about the option to support.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<div><br/><div>
<div>---------- Forwarded message ---------<br/>De : <b>Thato Mfikwe</b> <<a href="mailto:thatomfikwe@gmail.com" target="_blank">thatomfikwe@gmail.com</a>><br/>Date: mar. 14 janv. 2020 à 23:22<br/>Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Proposed Final Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group<br/>To: <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a>></div>
<br/><br/><div>
<div>Dear members,</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>This is just a call to everyone for discussion and input into the NCSG comment on the<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-final-23dec19-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> final recommendations on New gTLD Auction Proceeds</a>. It would help if we can have editors on the document to support <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eyGGPIFFMhVbEpIZQexgXkKO67fU33PZfv7G8HVY6_c/edit" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">our comment</a>.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>This call for community comment on the final recommendations of New gTLD Auction Proceeds will determine how these Auction Proceeds are replenished, we there for request the community to help answer the following 3 questions:</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">1. Do you support the CCWG's recommendation in relation to the preferred mechanism(s)? If no, please provide your rationale for why not.</span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>2.
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as listed above, in response to the Public Comment forum? If yes, please specify what changes concern you and why?</span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>3.
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">Is there any further information you think the CCWG should consider, that it hasn't considered previously, in order to finalize its report for submission to the Chartering Organizations?</span> <br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>NCSG submitted a comment on the initial report and it seems like based on the final report, a majority of communities AC's, SO's and substructures, favoured Mechanism A and B, leaving Mechanism C out of 3 possible options for the replenishment of New gTLD Auction Proceeds.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><b>Question 1 (Preferred mechanism)</b></div>
<div><i>NCSG preferred Mechanism C according to the initial <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429792/Initial%20Report%20of%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Cross-Community%20Working%20Group%20-%20NCSG%20comment.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1546455158000&api=v2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NCSG comment in December 2018</a>, which was an independent ICANN Foundation with its own Board of Directors.</i></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Understandably so, autonomy needs to be exercised and upheld in order to ensure integrity in decision making as opposed to current accountability and transparency issues and discrepancies that emerge from time to time within ICANN the organisation.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Based on the final 2 options, after shortlisting and according to the final report under review, <b>it seems like Mechanism B is better as it involved an external organisation which will work with ICANN to replenish these funds. </b></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Option A, IMO, is not viable as it compromises independence in decision making, where ICANN might be required to open a new department that will deal solely on replenishments of Auction Proceeds reporting directly to the CEO and Board.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Mechanisms in summary under review:</div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><b>Mechanism A:</b> </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">An internal department dedicated to </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">the </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">allocation of au</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">ction proceeds is</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">created within the ICANN organization</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><b><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Mechanism B</span></b><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">:</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> An </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">i</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">nternal </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">department</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">created within the ICANN organization which collaborates</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> with an existing non</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">-</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">profit.</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><b><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Mechanism C</span></b><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><b>:</b> A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created which</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> is functionally separate</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"> from ICANN</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">org</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">, </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">which would be responsible for </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">the allocation of auction proceeds</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><b>Question 2 (Any other concerns)</b></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><br/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">A criteria was developed to evaluate different </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">mechanisms, namely:</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;">- <span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Efficiency and effectiveness</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Cost</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">-</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">effectiveness of setting up the mechanism (most value for money)</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- Cost</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">-</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">effectiveness of running the mechanism (e.g. overhead, oper</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">ating costs)</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Ability to sunset (i.e. terminate / close down)</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- Ease of setting up in terms of time and effort</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"></span><span style="font-size:x-small;"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Ability to meet legal and fiduciary requirements</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- Enabling ICANN stakeholder engagement</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Efficient means for fund allocation from selection to </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">fund distribution for projects</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Administrative complexity to run</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Means for oversight</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- Providing transparency and accountability</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Equipped to operate and execute globally distributed projects</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Balance of control between ICANN </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">org </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">and independence of fund alloca</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">tion</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;"><br/></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">- </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;">Risk</span></span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>According to NCSG initial comment the role of the community has not been clearly articulated during the allocation and distribution of Auction Proceeds.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><b>Question 3 (Any other considerations)</b></div>
<div>From me, I would propose that Mechanism A be completely removed and we remain with only B & C, as both options promise independence in the allocation of Auction Proceeds.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Your input will be highly appreciated, thanks.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Thato Mfikwe.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre style="margin:5px 0;">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_self" rel="noreferrer noopener">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote></span></body></html>