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

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

I do support mechanism c.

Best,
Martín


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 10:52 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com wrote:

> 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/20181211/2713b01f/attachment.htm>