Auction proceeds CCWG - Final Survey on Mechanisms

[lists@icann.guru]

The community oversight part was discussed extensively in the WG and has some issues including conflict of interest and issues with the fiduciary responsibilities for disbursement.. 
Also the EC would not be suitable for this as it has specific and limited powers.


---
James Gannon
On 23/04/2020 08:56:30, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Julf, 

Thanks for sending us the poll! 

Since the mechanism C is pretty much off the table, would there be space for the implementation of Mechanism A with some level of community oversight - apart from the oversight we already do -? Im thinking that, maybe, such oversight can be implemented through the empowered community or a clearer mandate of this yet to be created internal department stating that it would need to take into consideration community advice in a more enforced way...
Also, I am a bit behind on this discussion, but I am also understanding that mechanism B is not entirely this community oversight im referring to, but more on the grounds of an external auditor, is that correct ? 

best, 
Bruna 




Le jeu. 23 avr. 2020 à 04:14, lists at icann.guru <lists at icann.guru> a écrit :

Hey Julf,

So sorry to be clearer, I support sending one mechanism to the board. 

In terms of which mechanism I prefer C. 
If C is off the table I would go with A as I think the collaboration model introduced too much complexity and admin overhead when it comes to reality, and I am of the opinion that it would bring additional risks to the disbursement of the funds within ICANN mission.

---
James Gannon
On 13/04/2020 19:27:33, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com [mailto:julf at julf.com]> wrote:
I hope everybody is staying safe and healthy.

The auction proceeds CCWG is asking for a response to this poll by
Friday, April 24:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5 [https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5]

Do we, as NCSG, at this point, have a position on these questions:

4. Are you of the view that the CCWG should only recommend one mechanism
for ICANN Board consideration, even if your preferred mechanism does not
come out as the preferred mechanism of the CCWG overall?

A) Yes, the CCWG should only recommend one mechanism to the ICANN Board.

B) No, the CCWG should recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the
ICANN Board and have the ICANN Board make the final determination, as
long as the other CCWG recommendations are followed.

C) No, the CCWG should recommend all three remaining mechanisms and have
the ICANN Board make the final determination, as long as the other CCWG
recommendations are followed.

5. Please rank the three remaining mechanisms in your order of
preference, with 1 being the preferred mechanism to recommend to the
ICANN Board.

A) Mechanism A: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of
auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization.

B) Mechanism B: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of
auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which
collaborates with an existing non-profit.

C) Mechanism C: A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created
which is functionally separate from ICANN org, which would be
responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds.

Julf



--

Bruna Martins dos Santos 

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos

@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200423/aab6ff2b/attachment.htm>