[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Proposed Final Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group

[Rafik Dammak]

hi all,

sending reminder regarding reviewing the comment on auctions proceeds
report.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 6 févr. 2020 à 06:43, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> hi all,
>
> the deadline for submission is the 14th February. please review the draft
> comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le jeu. 16 janv. 2020 à 13:44, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this draft comment is our pipeline for review and endorsement. Thato is
>> asking for help for editing and proofreading, also comments about the
>> option to support.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> De : Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>> Date: mar. 14 janv. 2020 à 23:22
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Proposed Final Report of the New
>> gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group
>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>
>>
>> Dear members,
>>
>> This is just a call to everyone for discussion and input into the NCSG
>> comment on the final recommendations on New gTLD Auction Proceeds
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-final-23dec19-en.pdf>.
>> It would help if we can have editors on the document to support our
>> comment
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eyGGPIFFMhVbEpIZQexgXkKO67fU33PZfv7G8HVY6_c/edit>
>> .
>>
>> This call for community comment on the final recommendations of New gTLD
>> Auction Proceeds will determine how these Auction Proceeds are replenished,
>> we there for request the community to help answer the following 3 questions:
>>
>> 1. Do you support the CCWG's recommendation in relation to the preferred
>> mechanism(s)? If no, please provide your rationale for why not.
>>
>> 2. Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as
>> listed above, in response to the Public Comment forum? If yes, please
>> specify what changes concern you and why?
>>
>> 3. Is there any further information you think the CCWG should consider,
>> that it hasn't considered previously, in order to finalize its report for
>> submission to the Chartering Organizations?
>>
>>
>> NCSG submitted a comment on the initial report and it seems like based on
>> the final report, a majority of communities AC's, SO's and substructures,
>> favoured Mechanism A and B, leaving Mechanism C out of 3 possible options
>> for the replenishment of New gTLD Auction Proceeds.
>>
>> *Question 1 (Preferred mechanism)*
>> *NCSG preferred Mechanism C according to the initial NCSG comment in
>> December 2018
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429792/Initial%20Report%20of%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Cross-Community%20Working%20Group%20-%20NCSG%20comment.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1546455158000&api=v2>,
>> which was an independent ICANN Foundation with its own Board of Directors.*
>>
>> Understandably so, autonomy needs to be exercised and upheld in order to
>> ensure integrity in decision making as opposed to current accountability
>> and transparency issues and discrepancies that emerge from time to time
>> within ICANN the organisation.
>>
>> Based on the final 2 options, after shortlisting and according to the
>> final report under review, *it seems like Mechanism B is better as it
>> involved an external organisation which will work with ICANN to replenish
>> these funds. *
>>
>> Option A, IMO, is not viable as it compromises independence in decision
>> making, where ICANN might be required to open a new department that will
>> deal solely on replenishments of Auction Proceeds reporting directly to the
>> CEO and Board.
>>
>>
>> Mechanisms in summary under review:
>> *Mechanism A:* An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction
>> proceeds is created within the ICANN organization.
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> *Mechanism C**:* A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is
>> created which is functionally separate from ICANNorg, which would be
>> responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds.
>>
>>
>> *Question 2 (Any other concerns)*
>>
>> A criteria was developed to evaluate different mechanisms, namely:
>> - Efficiency and effectiveness
>> - Cost-effectiveness of setting up the mechanism (most value for money)
>> - Cost-effectiveness of running the mechanism (e.g. overhead, operating
>> costs)
>> - Ability to sunset (i.e. terminate / close down)
>> - Ease of setting up in terms of time and effort
>> - Ability to meet legal and fiduciary requirements
>> - Enabling ICANN stakeholder engagement
>> - Efficient means for fund allocation from selection to fund
>> distribution for projects
>> - Administrative complexity to run
>> - Means for oversight
>> - Providing transparency and accountability
>> - Equipped to operate and execute globally distributed projects
>> - Balance of control between ICANN org and independence of fund alloca
>> tion
>> - Risk
>>
>> According to NCSG initial comment the role of the community has not been
>> clearly articulated during the allocation and distribution of Auction
>> Proceeds.
>>
>>
>> *Question 3 (Any other considerations)*
>> From me, I would propose that Mechanism A be completely removed and we
>> remain with only B & C, as both options promise independence in the
>> allocation of Auction Proceeds.
>>
>> Your input will be highly appreciated, thanks.
>>
>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20200211/8a57c705/attachment.htm>