[NCSG-PC] Auctions proceeds comment review (deadline 11th Dec)

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I don't think the point here is about we being convinced or not and so
defending our own positions (if for example, I say I am supporting option B
only?)). The few comments we got were supporting option B.  I see some
support here for option C on PC only. I am concerned about such change in
the last minute and. Previous wording offer support for the 2 options as we
don't have a clear consensus.
if other PC members support option C, they can weigh in and so that clearly
is in the record
@Martin @David sorry to re-ask as your responses are not quite explicit,
you are supporting option C?

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 11 déc. 2018 à 18:41, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> I have yet to hear a strong reason for supporting Mechanism B - what is
> the rationale for it? There has not been a lot of engagement on the list on
> this topic either, so I do not agree that there is a consensus that we
> should be supporting that dispersement mechanism.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 01:33, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> no problem with removing the part about access to funds.
> however, regarding the options, those who commented in the doc or in the
> NCSG list supported option B so I don't see how we can solely support
> option C only.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> Le lun. 10 déc. 2018 à 19:38, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> I have to agree with Ayden, the more shielded those funds are, the
>> better, is too much money and really needs to be used 1) only in a
>> financialy sustainable way, 2) in charitable projects. The 1) one is more
>> easily accountable, but the latter really needs as independent and
>> accountable process as it can get.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Martín
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018, 22:28 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Rafik. I have been further reflecting on this comment and
>>> believe we need to revise Recommendation #1 to take a stronger position. I
>>> do not support either Mechanism A or B, and would prefer to see us support
>>> solely Mechanism C. This is because an independent ICANN Foundation with
>>> its own, independent Board of Directors would be more accountable than
>>> anything Mechanisms A (utterly unaccountable) or B (weak accountability
>>> structure) can offer.
>>>
>>> I have also deleted an edit that said ICANN org should be able to access
>>> auction proceeds if it goes through a community consultation process. I do
>>> not support this at all, and think it contradicts the rest of our comment
>>> where we speak to how funds were supposed to be sequested for charitable
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Saturday, 8 December 2018 23:49, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> with some delay, I could finally go through the draft and makes edits
>>> based on comments:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XL_KZuzd9TD8w74mndklzpHLV37MYrJdGPbW5Ucn0ao/edit.
>>> I left the document on suggestion-mode to highlight the changes. I closed
>>> some comments that didn't lead to any change (you can still check them).
>>> the deadline for submission is the 11th December. please review the
>>> comment.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20181211/0be22643/attachment.htm>