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

Wed Feb 19 01:55:37 EET 2020

thanks all, the comment was submitted since there was no objection.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:18, Liz Orembo <lizorembo at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200219/89e6e8b0/attachment.htm>