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

Tue Feb 18 15:18:10 EET 2020

No objections from me Rafik with the edits in the document.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 14:16 James Gannon <lists at icann.guru> wrote:

> 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
>>>> <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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200218/1ab022cc/attachment.htm>