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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

please find attached the final version. I resolved the edit to support
option C.
as there was no objection, but basically support for the option, I will
submit the comment.

Best,

Rafik

Le mer. 12 déc. 2018 à 01:14, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/c2ac66a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group - NCSG comment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 116060 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20181212/c2ac66a1/attachment.pdf>