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

[Tatiana Tropina]

Hi Rafik,
as long as your edits are implemented (deletion of wording "racial" and
other) -- I am fine with the document. I couldn't follow the NCSG
discussions on the mechanism we prefer, so I hope the drafted reflected the
position correctly. I guess you would have told us if not.
Cheers,
Tanya

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 01:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200218/048912cd/attachment.htm>