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

Tue Feb 18 02:07:23 EET 2020

hi all,

for some reasons, this draft comment
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eyGGPIFFMhVbEpIZQexgXkKO67fU33PZfv7G8HVY6_c/edit
got
stuck in limbo while it was shared a while ago. it is regarding auctions
proceeds and responding to the questions asked by the team about the
preferred mechanism.
I already reached staff to give some time for late submission but they are
already working on staff summary. so I would like PC to reach decision
within the next 24 hours if possible. We can also ask Julf as our rep to
that CCWG for feedback.
the draft comment is quite short. you can find at the bottom the email sent
by Thato with the questions and issues raised in the draft 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/20200218/520e28f5/attachment.htm>