RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Marika for the quick response and helpful clarifications.

On the timing and length of the comment period, while it may be useful to get 
people thinking about the issues to be considered before Dublin, there cannot 
possibly be a staff report on those comments  completed in time for Dublin. 
Again, I was under the impression that there was a general policy against 
having comment periods end during, or just before or after, ICANN Public 
Meetings. So I would personally hope that consideration is given to extending 
the comment period, given how busy we will all be preparing for the many other 
important discussions/issues already in play for that meeting.

With best regards,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:34 PM
To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call 
for comments

Phil, thank you for your questions. As the main author of the paper, I am happy 
to respond. The idea for a discussion paper was raised during the SO/AC High 
Interest Topic Discussion as well as the workshop as a next step to allow for 
additional input from those that were not able to participate or provide input 
during the sessions in Buenos Aires. This proposed approach was also shared by 
Jonathan during his recent updates to the GNSO Council.

A CCWG is typically open to anyone interested to participate - there is no 
requirement to be an ICANN regular or member of an SO/AC, although recent CCWGs 
have, in addition to participations, SO/AC appointed members which have a 
particular communication and co-ordination role with respect to their SO/AC. As 
you point out there may not be any meaningful distinction between the ICANN 
community and others, but the paper wanted to make clear that anyone should be 
encouraged to provide input and feedback.

The issues in section 4 are intended to be a starting point for discussions and 
are largely based on issues raised during the BA sessions as well as my 
personal experiences with the development of charters for (C)WGs. It is the 
hope that these, in addition to other points that may be raised in response to 
the public comment forum, will help to inform the drafting team deliberations.

With regards to the 'other approach' as you may recall, one of the questions 
that was asked during the High Interest Topic Discussion in Buenos Aires was 
whether those participating were supportive of a CCWG or whether alternative 
approaches should be considered. Those that participated seemed generally 
supportive of a CCWG to address this topic, but staff did not want to exclude 
the possibility that there could be new suggestions or ideas in response to the 
public comment forum from those that may not have been able to participate in 
the BA meeting that the community may want to consider. This is in no way 
intended to undermine the CCWG approach but merely to allow those that may not 
have been able to have their voice heard before to share ideas and suggestions 
that may warrant further consideration.

I understand that the timing of the public comment forum is not ideal and 
consideration may need to be given to extending it beyond the Dublin meeting, 
but the hope was that the feedback provided would enable the community to 
review the feedback provided and embark on the next steps in this process 
during the ICANN meeting in Dublin.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 10 September 2015 11:04
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>, "GNSO Council 
List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for 
comments

Point of inquiry: Was publication of this notice triggered by Council support 
for a CCWG to  determine criteria for utilization of new gTLD auction funds, or 
was it triggered independently? The referenced Discussion paper, in Section 
3.1.4, seems to state that it was suggested at the SO/AC High Interest Topic 
Discussion and the Workshop held in BA and is not directly related to the CCWG 
process.

The discussion paper, in its introduction, calls for participation "from both 
within and outside the ICANN community". That seems at odds with a CCWG, which 
is of course made up of ICANN community members. It also seems to echo elements 
of the email that Steve Crocker sent when he first learned of potential support 
for a CCWG. I also remain unclear about whether there is any meaningful 
distinction between the ICANN community and other Internet-related interests or 
entities who do not participate in it -- given that ICANN participation is open 
to everyone without barriers as well as the very high physical and remote 
attendance at contemporary ICANN meetings.

I am also curious regarding the origin of the Issues to be Considered and 
Addressed catalogued in section 4 of the paper. I don't have any specific 
objection to any of them but wonder where they came from - and whether the list 
of potential issues shouldn't properly come from those who engage in this 
comment process and a future CCWG.

I further note this part of the Notice:
Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to 
allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, 
which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a 
Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is 
suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed 
preferable. (emphasis added)

It is not clear whether "another approach" refers to the Charter drafting team, 
or to the CCWG itself. If it is the latter (which seems more logical, as every 
CCWG needs a Charter drafted) then it would seem that there may be some intent 
to undermine a CCWG proceeding. In any event, I think this assertion needs 
clarification.

Finally, I am curious about what prompted the publication of this notice at 
this time, as it sets a comment deadline of October 18 - which is the starting 
Sunday of the Dublin ICANN meeting - which means that the comments cannot 
possibly be evaluated in time to inform any discussion of this topic in Dublin. 
The disposition of $60-million+ is a very important topic and asking the 
community to submit well-considered input at a time when so many remain heavily 
engaged on stewardship and accountability seems questionable. Further, I was 
under the impression that there was a general policy against setting deadlines 
that coincided with ICANN public meetings.

I would appreciate some response to this request for clarification on the 
points raised above.

Thanks and best regards, Philip




Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:44 AM
To: GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: [council] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for 
comments

New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en

Open Date:8 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

Close Date:18 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC

Staff Report Due:1 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC

Comments close in 38 Days
Submit Comment to 
Forum<mailto:comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15@xxxxxxxxx>
Comments 
Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/
Brief Overview

Purpose: This is a discussion 
paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-07sep15-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 455 KB] on the proceeds from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested new 
generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) strings. This paper calls for broad, open and 
inclusive public comment and encourages participation from all sectors, regions 
and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community.

Current Status: This paper aims to capture the information and input on this 
topic to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be 
addressed in the subsequent phases of the process to determine next steps in 
relation to new gTLD Auction Proceeds.

Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to 
allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, 
which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a 
Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is 
suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed 
preferable.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

Since the launch of the new gTLD Program, numerous suggestions have been made, 
such as during the ICANN public forum sessions at ICANN meetings, on how new 
gTLD auction proceeds should be spent including; suggestions that the funds 
should be donated to charitable organizations, support for applicants in future 
rounds, programs to promote new gTLDs and consumer protection, the creation of 
an ICANN trust, to returning the money to the applicants from the current 
round. However, it was not until March 2015 that the Generic Names Supporting 
Organization (GNSO) started discussing a possible process for facilitating the 
conversation around new gTLD auction proceeds during ICANN52 such as a 
Cross-Community Working Group (CCSG). The discussion 
paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-07sep15-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 455 KB] aims to capture the information and input on new gTLD Auction 
Proceeds to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be 
addressed in the subsequent phases of the process, such as outreach, 
participation and ensuring a focus on framework development, to determine next 
steps.

Broad, open and inclusive public comment input is sought and participation from 
all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN 
community is encouraged.

Section II: Background

The new gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to 
resolve string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets 
scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching 
an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power 
Auctions LLC. It was recognized from the outset that significant funds could 
accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, these auction proceeds have 
been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the 
appropriate use of the funds through dialogue with the community. Board, staff, 
and community are expected to be working together in designing and 
participating in the next steps addressing the use of new gTLD auction 
proceeds. 13 contention sets have been resolved via ICANN Auction since June 
2014. The total net proceeds to date are $58.8 million USD. Details of the 
proceeds can be found at 
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds.

Section III: Relevant Resources

  *   New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion 
Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-07sep15-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 455 KB]
  *   For more information about ICANN and its work, visit 
www.ICANN.org<https://www.icann.org/>
  *   For more information about the new gTLD program associated with these 
proceeds, visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/

Section IV: Additional Information
Section V: Reports
Staff Contact
Marika Konings
policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.