Changes

==Public Comments==

==Public Comments==

===Initial Report===

===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" />

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, including several from ICANN bodies (including the board). Comments touched 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===

===Proposed Final Report===

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.

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__