3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − + Line 18:
Line 18: − Other recommendations + + + + + + + + + + +
Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (view source)
Revision as of 23:05, 3 June 2021
, 3 years agono edit summary
==Charter and Guiding Questions==
==Charter and Guiding Questions==
The working group's charter was finalized in December 2016.<ref name="charter">[https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter CCWG-AP Charter], adopted December 2016</ref> The charter contained eleven questions to assist the working group to define the scope of its recommendations, and guide investigation into the issues surrounding allocation of proceeds. The questions covered both operational considerations, such as the structure and organization of the entity making allocation decisions, and guiding principles and objectives for those allocation decisions. The charter documented that, at the time of adoption, the accumulated auction proceeds were approximately $100 million.<ref name ="charter" />
The working group's charter was finalized in December 2016.<ref name="charter">[https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter CCWG-AP Charter], adopted December 2016</ref> The charter contained eleven questions to assist the working group to define the scope of its recommendations, and guide investigation into the issues surrounding allocation of proceeds. The questions covered both operational considerations, such as the structure and organization of the entity making allocation decisions, and guiding principles and objectives for those allocation decisions. The guiding principles included avoidance of conflicts of interest, independence of the allocating entity from ICANN's standard decision-making processes, and reviewability and transparency of the allocating entity's decisions and process.<ref name="charter" />The charter documented that, at the time of adoption, the accumulated auction proceeds were approximately $100 million.<ref name ="charter" />
==Objectives and Recommendations==
==Objectives and Recommendations==
The working group also considered a fourth option, which was to distribute funds to an existing nonprofit for allocation according to the rules and objectives established by ICANN. This option could be likened to a scholarship endowment, where the donors had control over the parameters of the award of the scholarship, but the endowed school would be responsible for managing the endowment. It was determined by the working group that that option would be unworkable.<ref name="finalrep" />
The working group also considered a fourth option, which was to distribute funds to an existing nonprofit for allocation according to the rules and objectives established by ICANN. This option could be likened to a scholarship endowment, where the donors had control over the parameters of the award of the scholarship, but the endowed school would be responsible for managing the endowment. It was determined by the working group that that option would be unworkable.<ref name="finalrep" />
There are a total of twelve recommendations, including the recommendations regarding objectives and choice of mechanism, as well as supplemental guidance regarding the questions contained in the group's charter.<ref name="finalrep" />
==Public Comments==
===Initial Report===
Both the initial report and a proposed final report of the working group were published for public comment. The public comment period for the initial report occurred at the end of 2018.<ref name="initpc">[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18/2018q4/thread.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Public Comments on Initial Report of CCWG-AP]</ref> There were thirty-seven comments posted to the mailing list during the period, touching on a variety of issues and topics contained in the initial report. After analysis and review of the comments received, the working group developed a list of agreements and action items, using the questions contained in the group's charter as a framework for organizing the group's agreements and actions in light of comments received.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138829/new%20gTLD%20AP%20CCWG%20Agreements%20-%20updated%206%20June%202019.docx CCWG-AP Workspace - CCWG Agreements based on review of comments], finalized June 6, 2019 (Word Document)</ref> The tasks and agreements to amend the initial report were reflected in the working group's proposed final report.<ref name="finalrep" />
===Proposed Final Report===
The public comment period of the proposed final report occurred in the spring of 2020. Sixteen comments were received, including a comment submitted by the ICANN Board.<ref>[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17kMjYzoqWtG_JsRELzrmNpZii3BLmh6nZYyj27Jcm1g/edit#gid=427013893 Google Forms Output - Public Comments on CCWG-AP's Proposed Final Draft], retrieved June 3, 2021</ref> The refinements and agreements resulting from the second round of public comment were less wide-ranging than the initial round, with a total of nineteen agreed-upon modifications to the final report.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126425480/CCWG%20Agreements%20-%20Proposed%20Final%20Report%20Public%20Comments%20upd%202%20Apr%202020.docx CCWG-AP Workspace - CCWG Agreements based on review of comments to proposed final draft], June 2020</ref> The modifications were again organized by their responsiveness to specific questions from the charter document.
===Minority Statement of the CSG===
The working group's final report included a minority statement from the [[Commercial Stakeholders Group]], stating that the working group's preference for option A (creating a department within ICANN to manage allocation of auction proceeds) was not entirely supported by the internal polls used to establish a preference. The CSG argued that, in fact, while there were eight votes in support of option A, there were more votes in favor of "something other than option A" when taken in total.<ref name="finalrep" /> The Intellectual Property Constituency voiced strong opposition to the creation of an internal allocation mechanism, worrying both about overhead costs, strain on fiduciary obligations, and the appearance of self-dealing that might result.<ref name="finalrep" /> The CSG did not dispute the "consensus" label of the recommendation of either option A or option B, but urged the board to closely consider the poll results and other factors when weighing the choice of mechanism for allocation of funds.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__