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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

Edits were accepted. Deadline is few hours away.

Best,

Rafik

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 23:03 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com wrote:

> I would understand if we have to be more open since this is a last, big,
> minute change.
>
> Martin
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 10:57 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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/20181212/0a387109/attachment.htm>