May 2018 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Notes and action items - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 31 May 2018
by Marika Konings May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items of today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Note that the next meeting will be scheduled for Thursday 14 June at 14.00 UTC Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting – 31 May 2018 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Roll Call will be taken from Adobe Connect * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and don't forget to mute your line / microphone when not speaking to avoid interruption. * Audio only: Xavier Calvez (only first part of the meeting), Kavouss Arasteh 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates * Reminder - please check your SOI/DOIs and make sure these are up to date 3. Next steps for addressing charter questions * See email circulated by Erika earlier today * See template that was circulated to facilitate developing a response to the remaining charter questions. Leadership is offering to develop a first draft response to the charter questions for CCWG review, if possible prior to ICANN62. * See letter from the ICANN Board providing input on the mechanisms discussion. Board is of the view that there should be various tranches of funding so that the mechanism chosen can be closely monitored and adjustments, if needed, can be made. Mechanisms chosen should focus on effective and efficient disbursement. More information will be needed on relevant costs of the different mechanisms. Should be able to evaluate and monitor projects on a global basis. More work needed on ensuring a common understanding and providing additional definition of the mechanisms in advance of public comment. * Board letter seems to suggest that CCWG should not rush for public comment. * Any direct costs like communication, etc. should all be funded out of the proceeds or would some of these come out of ICANN's general budget? Board has not actually discussed that yet - cost for evaluating, managing, running the program would need to come out of the funding. Discreet items such as a communications plan in advance has not been discussed in particular, but could be considered inclusive of overall running of the program. Cost associated with a communication plan should be factored in. Measuring efficiency of funds need to take into account holistic viewpoint of costs that are associated with setting up / running a mechanism. CCWG may need to map out the different cost elements to get a better idea and track key areas of costs to determine how these would be funded. Need to look at costs from a standalone perspective. ICANN's ongoing funding is not set up to take care of this - all costs are expected to come out of auction proceeds. Once implementation starts, this is expected to come out of auction proceeds funding. * Further input on expected / max overhead costs may also be needed. Board previously mentioned a 5% threshold. Is there flexibility there to ensure efficiency / effectiveness balance? What is reasonable and what is cost effective, depends on the circumstances and the nature of the grants that are being made. % was never intended to be a hard / fast line. % needs to be reasonable in light of the objectives of the program. Focus should be on the use for proceeds in furtherance of the mission instead of administrative costs. Could ask in work on general description to provide an indication if overhead costs would be closer to 3 or 10 %, for example. * Need to also evaluate mechanisms according to the defined principles mentioned in the Board letter. Factor this into the draft response to charter questions. * Need to further consider how feasible tranching is as it will depend on size of fund allocation, similar would need to further discuss what mechanisms would need to be put in place that would warrant changes / corrections. Board is committed to the notion that funds would be allocated over a period of time to be able to ensure in earlier stages that proper controls are in place to monitor and manage applications and evaluations. Board has not yet considered possible size of fund allocation to projects. Objectives of fund allocation determined by the community would hopefully further clarity / guide that conversation. Intersection between size of projects and costs of overhead. * One of the factors that will significantly impact costs, which is not usually considered in any standard percentage, is the cost inherent to supporting a multistakeholder process: whether it is to organize some community communication on the overall process of the auction proceeds, or to support transparency and accountability mechanisms, these activities are rarely encountered elsewhere but are prevalent at ICANN and are very resource consuming. That will significantly impact the costs incurred for the program. If you take an illustration that the Drafting Team early on and now this CCWG AP have been working on the topic for 2 years, with ICANN's support, the costs is already significant and we have not even started implementing anything. * CCWG could consider whether certain amounts are allocated to baskets to focus on certain types of projects, including different sizes. CCWG to re-evaluate if that is a recommendation it would like to made. * The topic of tranches is one of the operational consequence of the board's fiduciary duty that the funds are used within mission and effectively: releasing funds in tranches to a given recipient allows to establish accountability mechanisms for that recipient to demonstrate that the funds are appropriately used. The other tranche topic is, as an example, to provide X million of dollars for allocation during a given year, which also allows to control the amount of effort required for evaluation and disbursement, allowing to minimize risks of errors or issues. * As a reminder, Sarah Berg has been asked to assist with developing a general description of each of these mechanisms. Action item #1: CCWG leadership to work on first draft of responses to charter questions, factoring in board input as well as discussion during today's meeting (31/5). To be circulated at the latest by 18 June to allow for sufficient time for CCWG to review. Action item #2: CCWG to consider developing list of cost elements to get a better idea and track key areas of costs and determine how these would be funded (from auction proceeds or differently). 4. Planning for ICANN62 * See email sent by Erika proposing to delay HIT session to ICANN63 and have a F2F meeting instead which would include an update to the community. In addition, leadership team is available to come and speak to / present to those groups that are interested. CCWG could consider other mechanisms to provide updates to the community for example in the form of a webinar. Regular newsletters are already provided to ensure that chartering organizations have regular status updates. Action item #3: CCWG to move forward with the changes that have been proposed (postpone HIT session to ICANN63 and change it to a F2F meeting instead. 5. Finalisation of preamble & reminder to review project examples by Monday 4 June at 18:00 UTC * No further input received on the preamble so that document should be considered final for inclusion in the Initial Report. Action item #4: reminder, CCWG to review project examples by Monday 4 June at 18.00 UTC at the latest. 6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 7 or 14 June at 14:00 UTC) * Next meeting to be scheduled for 14 June at 14.00 UTC. Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 31 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 31 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-31may18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7tsy1wum54/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/jhAFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

ICANN62 - revised plan
by Erika Mann May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All, As discussed during last week’s meeting, the leadership team has further considered the plans for ICANN62 in Panama and, noting the current state of work, we like to propose to postpone the high interest topic (HIT) session to ICANN63. By then the Initial Report should be out and a substantive discussion can be held with the community on the proposed recommendations. However, this should not mean that no update is provided on the status of work during ICANN62. The leadership team would like to propose to host an open F2F WG meeting, instead of the HIT session, which would kick off with a status update for those interested. Furthermore, the leadership team will be available to come and present to your respective groups, ideally in cooperation with CCWG AP members/participants. Please be so kind to check with your group to see whether there's an interest in arranging such an exchange. We hope this presents a reasonable balance between making sure the community is able to get an update on the latest state of work, while not taking up prime time while the Initial Report is not ready yet for community review. If there is no objection to this approach, this would mean that the F2F meeting of the WG would be scheduled for Wednesday 27 June from 15.15 – 16.45 local time. Please feel free to share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. We hope to finalize this approach during Thursday’s meeting. Best regards, Erika & Ching

2 2

Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr to Erika Mann and Ching Chiao
by Erika Mann May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All - Please find attached a letter from Maarten Botterman and Becky Burr in response to our email of 11 May 2018 requesting Board input. The letter will be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence. Kind regards, Erika

2 2

Fwd: Proposed response - charter questions next steps
by Erika Mann May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All - The leadership team would like to kickstart an email discussion about the need to combine draft responses to the charter questions with the work that will have to be undertaken to flesh out the descriptions for each mechanism. Hopefully the combination of these two work products will further help to refine the CCWG’s thinking towards its Initial Report. Afterwards, once work on the charter questions and descriptions has been completed, we should consider to redo our stroll poll survey concerning the four mechanism. In order to progress work on the charter questions, it would be helpful if a first draft response is prepared, taking into account the work that the CCWG undertook in the early stages of its deliberations to understand the charter questions and obtain initial input and thinking on those charter questions (see https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw) The leadership team, with the support of staff, is willing to take a first stab at developing draft responses for the CCWG’s review, unless there are volunteers who would be willing to take on this task. The idea would be that a draft is ready for review and discussion prior to ICANN62 so that the meeting there can be dedicated to further refining and maybe even finalizing the responses. We had hoped to send this email to you earlier but we still welcome your feedback on this proposed approach ahead of Thursday’s meeting. Best regards, Erika&Ching *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> *Date: *Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:32 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Discuss next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms Dear All, To encourage discussions with regards to possible next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms, please find attached a template that could be used to start develop proposed responses to each of the charter questions for the different mechanisms. You are encouraged to provide your input on possible next steps ahead of the upcoming meeting on 31 June. Best regards, Marika *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:36 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please take particular note of the following action items: *Action item #1*: CCWG to review latest version of preamble (see attached) and provide any comments *at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC*. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. *Action item #2*: CCWG to review latest version of project example (see attached) and provide any comments at the latest by *Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC*. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. [*Note, I made an update in line with the comments provided by Tony and Jon in relation to example previously #12 – if there is disagreement about this change, please share your feedback with the list*] *Action item #4*: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. Best regards, Marika ============== *Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - 24 May 2018* *These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: **https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> *.* 1. Roll Call - Attendance will be taken from AC - Please state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone before speaking 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates - Please remember to review your DOI/SOI on a regular basis and update accordingly 3. Response to ICANN Board a. Review proposed edits to the preamble (see latest cleaned up version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X- LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit [docs.google.com] for redline) - Board provided input on the original version of the preamble. CCWG reviewed input and has made updates accordingly. - Note that the objective is now to get the document into a state that it can be included in the Initial Report for public comment, so if there are any elements that are deemed objectionable/not acceptable by CCWG these should be flagged as soon as possible. - Request final comments by email by Wednesday 30 May. - Remaining questions could also be put forward during public session. *Action item #1*: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. b. Review proposed edits to project examples (see latest clean version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHJneNt5epskQoGRjnmonM- vW8GyTz_SwBCaftNEgr0/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs [docs.google.com] for redline) See latest version shared. - Objective is the same as for the previous document - aim to get it into a state for inclusion in the Initial Report following which the CCWG can review again and update as needed. *Action item #2*: CCWG to review latest version of project examples and provide any comments at the latest by Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. c. Next steps - See action items #1 and #2 4. Review straw poll survey results (see summary results attached as well as https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-8KL7RTGDL/ [surveymonkey.com] a. Is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered? b. Should additional expertise be sought to further flesh out each mechanism? - See summary results shared together with the agenda - Based on survey results, is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered in the next phase of work (answering the charter questions for each mechanism that would move forward to the next phase). - Note that some questions still remain unanswered such as the # amount of funds available noting the parallel conversations in relation to the reserve fund as well as ongoing litigation. - More detail may be needed before any final decision can be made. Could ask Sarah Berg to assist in developing a general description of these different mechanisms - focused on a clear understanding of what each mechanism represents and entails. - Would it also be possible to switch between mechanisms to see what works in practice? - No statistical difference, very low response rate from members as well as participants. - All criteria have been weighted the same at the moment - is there a need to weigh some higher than others? - Is this more an opinion poll than a fact based poll? - May not be possible to eliminate any options at this point in time - further information and review is needed. - Consider developing a template table to start work on responding on each of the charter questions. This will take sizeable amount of work and consultation with experts, including Samantha Eisner and Xavier Calvez. - CCWG to consider during the next meeting whether there is enough substance to present during the High Interest Topic session or whether a different format should be pursued. *Action item #3*: Ask Sarah Berg to assist with a general description of each of the mechanism to help explain to the broader community the different mechanisms as well as allow the CCWG to focus on any issues. *Action item #4*: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. *Action item #5*: Staff to share template that could be used for moving forward on the charter questions as an example. c. Next steps 5. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC) *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org <marika.konings(a)icann.org> * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. *

1 0

Notes and action items from today's CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting
by Marika Konings May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please take particular note of the following action items: Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble (see attached) and provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. Action item #2: CCWG to review latest version of project example (see attached) and provide any comments at the latest by Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. [Note, I made an update in line with the comments provided by Tony and Jon in relation to example previously #12 – if there is disagreement about this change, please share your feedback with the list] Action item #4: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. Best regards, Marika ============== Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - 24 May 2018 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC * Please state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone before speaking 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates * Please remember to review your DOI/SOI on a regular basis and update accordingly 3. Response to ICANN Board a. Review proposed edits to the preamble (see latest cleaned up version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k… [docs.google.com] for redline) * Board provided input on the original version of the preamble. CCWG reviewed input and has made updates accordingly. * Note that the objective is now to get the document into a state that it can be included in the Initial Report for public comment, so if there are any elements that are deemed objectionable/not acceptable by CCWG these should be flagged as soon as possible. * Request final comments by email by Wednesday 30 May. * Remaining questions could also be put forward during public session. Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. b. Review proposed edits to project examples (see latest clean version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHJneNt5epskQoGRjnmonM-vW8GyTz_SwBCaftN… [docs.google.com] for redline) See latest version shared. * Objective is the same as for the previous document - aim to get it into a state for inclusion in the Initial Report following which the CCWG can review again and update as needed. Action item #2: CCWG to review latest version of project examples and provide any comments at the latest by Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. c. Next steps * See action items #1 and #2 4. Review straw poll survey results (see summary results attached as well as https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-8KL7RTGDL/ [surveymonkey.com] a. Is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered? b. Should additional expertise be sought to further flesh out each mechanism? * See summary results shared together with the agenda * Based on survey results, is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered in the next phase of work (answering the charter questions for each mechanism that would move forward to the next phase). * Note that some questions still remain unanswered such as the # amount of funds available noting the parallel conversations in relation to the reserve fund as well as ongoing litigation. * More detail may be needed before any final decision can be made. Could ask Sarah Berg to assist in developing a general description of these different mechanisms - focused on a clear understanding of what each mechanism represents and entails. * Would it also be possible to switch between mechanisms to see what works in practice? * No statistical difference, very low response rate from members as well as participants. * All criteria have been weighted the same at the moment - is there a need to weigh some higher than others? * Is this more an opinion poll than a fact based poll? * May not be possible to eliminate any options at this point in time - further information and review is needed. * Consider developing a template table to start work on responding on each of the charter questions. This will take sizeable amount of work and consultation with experts, including Samantha Eisner and Xavier Calvez. * CCWG to consider during the next meeting whether there is enough substance to present during the High Interest Topic session or whether a different format should be pursued. Action item #3: Ask Sarah Berg to assist with a general description of each of the mechanism to help explain to the broader community the different mechanisms as well as allow the CCWG to focus on any issues. Action item #4: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. Action item #5: Staff to share template that could be used for moving forward on the charter questions as an example. c. Next steps 5. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC As a reminder, all conference call details will be circulated on the “ntfy” (short for “notify”) mailing list to which members only are subscribed in a read-only mode. These details must not be circulated on the wider public WG mailing list. To avoid burdening the WG public mailing list, please send your apologies ahead of time (apologies after the call will no longer be taken into account) and your dial-out requests to the GNSO Secretariat: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> in advance of the meeting. 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates 3. Next steps for addressing charter questions 4. Planning for ICANN62 5. Finalisation of preamble & reminder to review project examples by Monday 4 June at 18:00 UTC 6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 7 or 14 June at 14:00 UTC) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 24 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 24 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-24may18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1cx0elafw4/<https://participate.icann.org/p1cx0elafw4/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=78cab7129675735b…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/iRAFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Discuss next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms
by Marika Konings May 28, 2018

May 28, 2018

Dear All, To encourage discussions with regards to possible next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms, please find attached a template that could be used to start develop proposed responses to each of the charter questions for the different mechanisms. You are encouraged to provide your input on possible next steps ahead of the upcoming meeting on 31 June. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:36 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please take particular note of the following action items: Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble (see attached) and provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. Action item #2: CCWG to review latest version of project example (see attached) and provide any comments at the latest by Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. [Note, I made an update in line with the comments provided by Tony and Jon in relation to example previously #12 – if there is disagreement about this change, please share your feedback with the list] Action item #4: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. Best regards, Marika ============== Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - 24 May 2018 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC * Please state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone before speaking 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates * Please remember to review your DOI/SOI on a regular basis and update accordingly 3. Response to ICANN Board a. Review proposed edits to the preamble (see latest cleaned up version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k… [docs.google.com] for redline) * Board provided input on the original version of the preamble. CCWG reviewed input and has made updates accordingly. * Note that the objective is now to get the document into a state that it can be included in the Initial Report for public comment, so if there are any elements that are deemed objectionable/not acceptable by CCWG these should be flagged as soon as possible. * Request final comments by email by Wednesday 30 May. * Remaining questions could also be put forward during public session. Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 30 May at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. b. Review proposed edits to project examples (see latest clean version attached and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHJneNt5epskQoGRjnmonM-vW8GyTz_SwBCaftN… [docs.google.com] for redline) See latest version shared. * Objective is the same as for the previous document - aim to get it into a state for inclusion in the Initial Report following which the CCWG can review again and update as needed. Action item #2: CCWG to review latest version of project examples and provide any comments at the latest by Monday 4 June 2018 at 18.00 UTC. Comments should focus on any items that are deemed not acceptable / objectionable for inclusion in the Initial Report. c. Next steps * See action items #1 and #2 4. Review straw poll survey results (see summary results attached as well as https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-8KL7RTGDL/ [surveymonkey.com] a. Is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered? b. Should additional expertise be sought to further flesh out each mechanism? * See summary results shared together with the agenda * Based on survey results, is it possible to narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered in the next phase of work (answering the charter questions for each mechanism that would move forward to the next phase). * Note that some questions still remain unanswered such as the # amount of funds available noting the parallel conversations in relation to the reserve fund as well as ongoing litigation. * More detail may be needed before any final decision can be made. Could ask Sarah Berg to assist in developing a general description of these different mechanisms - focused on a clear understanding of what each mechanism represents and entails. * Would it also be possible to switch between mechanisms to see what works in practice? * No statistical difference, very low response rate from members as well as participants. * All criteria have been weighted the same at the moment - is there a need to weigh some higher than others? * Is this more an opinion poll than a fact based poll? * May not be possible to eliminate any options at this point in time - further information and review is needed. * Consider developing a template table to start work on responding on each of the charter questions. This will take sizeable amount of work and consultation with experts, including Samantha Eisner and Xavier Calvez. * CCWG to consider during the next meeting whether there is enough substance to present during the High Interest Topic session or whether a different format should be pursued. Action item #3: Ask Sarah Berg to assist with a general description of each of the mechanism to help explain to the broader community the different mechanisms as well as allow the CCWG to focus on any issues. Action item #4: CCWG to discuss on mailing list next steps for moving forward with the four mechanisms. Action item #5: Staff to share template that could be used for moving forward on the charter questions as an example. c. Next steps 5. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 31 May at 14.00 UTC) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Straw Poll - Mechanisms
by Anthony Harris May 24, 2018

May 24, 2018

Dear all, As advanced during our call earlier today, the CSG has the following statement to make concerning the Straw Poll on Mechanisms which recetnly concluded: "*While the CSG may be able to provide a top level indicative indication* *(although not one with unanimous support) judged on the limited choices* *offered, it needs to be stated that until additional details on any form of* *implementation are defined and understood to a much greater degree, then* *this initial response from the CSG cannot be taken to assume that ANY of* *the options offered have our full support. It would also be appropriate to add* *that far more detail is required before that question could be answered with* *any degree of commitment or support from our membership."* Thanks, Tony Harris

1 0