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

Tue Feb 18 13:16:38 EET 2020

Lgtm 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 11:13, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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. It would help if we can have editors on the document to support our comment.
>>>> 
>>>> 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, 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 allocation
>>>> - 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f9dd7570/attachment.htm>