Auction proceeds - second public comment period needed?

[Sam Lanfranco]

I would suggest strong support for a second public comment period. 
For those of you who were not close to the work of the CCWG on the auction
proceeds, I remind us that the discussion was about the mechanism to
administer the auction proceeds.It was not about the criteria for the
allocation of auction proceeds.The original report (Oct 2018), and subject
of the initial public comment period is at:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18-en.pdf
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18-en.pdf)
 For me, the current "actions list" in response to the first comment
period: 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138829/new%20gTLD%20AP%20CCWG%20Agreements%20-%20updated%2022%20April%202019.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1555965919000&api=v2
(https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138829/new%20gTLD%20AP%20CCWG%20Agreements%20-%20updated%2022%20April%202019.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1555965919000&api=v2)
contains two key areas for further comment. One is the choice of the
"mechanism": 
"For now, CCWG will keep all three options open (A, B and C) and will
re-evaluate at the end of the review all public comments and further input
requested whether any of the mechanisms should be eliminated from
consideration."
and the other is the role of a Community Advisory Committee in the
subsequent evaulation process:
"Based on the feedback, CCWG to consider if/how community should be
involved in the evaluation process. "
My humble 2 cents,
Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190510/e9516379/attachment.htm>