September 2018 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

For your review - updated version of draft Initial Report
by Marika Konings Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

Dear All, Following today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting, please find attached an updated version of the draft Initial Report in which updates have been made (in redline) to reflect the deliberations and agreement on how to move forward on the outstanding items that were identified. In addition, staff has added language for the executive summary, based on the current contents of the report. To facilitate your review, previous redlines were accepted (for those wanting to review the previous version, please see https://community.icann.org/x/twiNBQ) Please share with the mailing list by Monday 1 October at the latest whether there are any further issues or edits that need to be discussed. Based on the feedback received, the leadership team will decide whether or not to go ahead with the meeting on 4 October. As a reminder, the objective is to publish the Initial Report for public comment by 8 October at the latest. Best regards, Emily, Joke and Marika 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-…>.

9 9

FW: [Ext] Fw: MSC - comments on the CCWG-AP DRAFT Report
by Emily Barabas Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

Dear all, Please find attached comments from Marilyn Cade, forwarded by staff at Marilyn’s request. Please note the following clarification from staff in response the below concern raised about the attendance/participation section of the draft report -- Note that the explanation of “*” is at the top of the attendee table (“Member and participant names marked with an ( * ) refer to those who replied "yes" or "maybe" to question #6 (“Do you and/or through the entity you are representing and/or employed by, intent to apply for funding through the mechanism that is to be determined through the work of this CCWG?”) on the Declaration of Interest (DOI).) The attendance records are factual – the detailed record is available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GJjDAw. A reason to use percentage instead of meetings attended is that it factors in when someone joined and as such reflects the % of meetings attended since joining. Kind regards, Marika, Joke, and Emily From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Monday, 24 September 2018 at 01:24 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fw: MSC - comments on the CCWG-AP DRAFT Report Marika/colleagues, Thanks very much for calling the opportunity to review the draft. Apologies/and belated regrets for missing the call. I had planned to be on the call but was called into a video conference with the Liberian government to brief on why they should attend the upcoming ICANN meeting and the IGF2018. I highlighted the phrase describing Mechanism A and Mechanism B, early in the document -- only because they have the same name. And, in another place, the term mechanism is used for a review... I am only calling these to staff attention. It may not be confusing to our external audience... There are a few other suggestions which are in change mode. I know that it may not be possible to accept all. Overall, the report is both detailed, and informative. Special appreciation to all of you, and our two co chairs. Finally, in the attendance/participation section, there are several *'s, but I didn't find the explanation for what * means. As you now, I am concerned that the attendance records are factual. For those who joined during the course of the meetings, perhaps the * is intended to then have a notation? Best Regards Marilyn S. Cade

1 0

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Thursday, 20 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 20, 2018

Sept. 20, 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, 20 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-20sep18-e… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8a3z6g6nwm/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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/twiNBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Bisland

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - 20 September 2018
by Emily Barabas Sept. 20, 2018

Sept. 20, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting. Please note as summarized in the notes that staff will make the discussed revisions to the draft Initial Report and circulate to the CCWG. The CCWG will have an opportunity to review and submit further comments on the revised draft. Kind regards, Emily NOTES: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates * No updates. 3. Overview of input received on draft Initial Report * On screen: updated draft Initial Report that was circulated with the agenda. * Staff has inserted into the document the comments submitted by CCWG members. * Where changes are not controversial, staff suggested edits in response to comments from CCWG. If CCWG has additional input or concerns about the suggested edits, please share with the group. * For the comments where staff was not easily able to suggest edits, comments are highlighted in yellow. Staff will walk through these items so that the CCWG can discuss further. * Discussion Item: Comment on page 6 from Judith Hellerstein regarding description of Mechanism A: “In Mechanism 1, I have heard that there is also a possibility of outsourcing and I think this needs to be cleared up as itis written this is not clear.” Staff response: “This is presumably an implementation question? Not sure if this is something that can be confirmed at this stage as it may depend on what expertise is internally available and what isn’t? For example, if a specific type of audit is to be carried out, this may need to be outsourced? Should this be called out to be further addressed during implementation?” * Question from staff: Is there anything specific the group thinks can be included at this time with respect to outsourcing? Or can text simply be added indicating that the issue of outsourcing should be explored in implementation phase. * Comment - It is likely that certain items will be outsourced, such as audits. * One perspective - ICANN or another organization can outsource pretty much anything. This could include tasks or functions and could change over time. We should assume that some things may be outsourced based on needs. If there is something specific that we think must not be outsourced we can specify that. * ACTION ITEM 1: (Judith Hellerstein comment on page 6) Add footnote to indicate that following standard business practices and existing ICANN practices, the issue of outsourcing and whether is it necessary in some instances will be addressed in implementation. Include the example of audits in this footnote. * Discussion Item: Comment on page 6 from Marilyn regarding staffing concerns related to sunsetting. Staff added a response that this appears to be an implementation issue. * ACTION ITEM 2: (Marilyn Cade comment on page 6) staff to add a footnote indicating that details about staffing concerns related to sunsetting of the mechanism this will be addressed in implementation. To be confirmed with Marilyn that this approach is acceptable. * Suggestion - we may want to add additional text to the report describing the implementation phase and what will happen during this phase. * Discussion Item: Comment from Marilyn Cade on page 7 regarding “minimal” start-up process Mechanisms A and B. In response, staff requested input about how further information could be obtained or whether these are details that are to be developed as part of the implementation process? * ACTION ITEM 3: (Marilyn Cade comment on page 7) Edit to clarify that additional discussion will take place at the implementation phase regarding the exact costs at a later phase. The term "minimal" indicates that the costs will be relatively low compared to C and D. * The Board will conduct a feasibility assessment to flesh out the possible costs for the recommended mechanisms prior to proceding with implementation. This will likely result in gathering additional information about costs. * Discussion Item: Comment from Judith Hellerstein on page 7 requesting clarification of the division of labor for mechanism B. * Staff has added clarification to the text on what a DAF does and how roles are divided in practice. If the CCWG would like to provide further guidance or seek additional information, staff can support. * Feedback - add that additional work will need to be done to define the precise structure and division of work for the two entities. * The original intent was that ICANN would select a partner organization. There are different possible arrangements. We have not really discussed partnering with multiple entities. * Suggestion: this could be a question for the Initial Report to request feedback about how this should be divided. * Suggestion: focus on an arrangement where the work is subdivided between two organizations and leave it to ICANN to determine how this work should be subdivided with an opportunity for the Board to intervene. * ACTION ITEM 4: (Judith Hellerstein comment on page 7) Add text that the precise division of labor will be determined in implementation. CCWG to provide additional input on the mailing list if they have suggestions to clarify further. * In ALAC discussions, some envisioned that outsourcing would occur for project selection, while others envisioned the external entity would take on different responsibilities. It was not clear from the way we formulated this text what was intended. We want to make sure that if people are opting for this mechanism, they are all envisioning the same thing. * Discussion Item: Comment from Ching Chiao on page 7 requesting clarification on the division of labor. * This appears to be related to Judith's comment. See action item above. * Discussion Item: Comment on from Ching Chiao on page 7 requesting clarification on the difference between mechanisms B and D. * ACTION ITEM 5: (Ching Chiao comment on page 7): Clarify in the text that in mechanism B there is shared responsibility between ICANN and the external org, whereas with Mechanism D the work is outsourced but ICANN maintains oversight. This can be added to the text of the descriptions. Additional work will be needed to determine the details of the arrangement between the two entities. * Ching will submit additional comments about the two mechanisms B and D. * Discussion Item: Comment from Judith Hellerstein on page 8 regarding difficulty to get a firm for mechanism C. * This appears to be based on a misunderstanding. The question was based on a discussion that it might be difficult to completely outsource the function but dictate how the funds would be used under mechanism D. * No additional action needed on this comment. * In the past, we discussed that foundations are typically open-ended, not established for a limited period of time. * Comment: administratively it is not difficult to set up a foundation, but selecting staff and determining how to run it is costly and time consuming. * Comment: Mechanism B and D share the difficulty of maintaining the control while sharing the responsibility. This can be an issue with a DAF as well. DAFs have their own rules that they follow when you work with them. When we actually explore the possibilities of working with specific DAFs we may find that they are not able to do what we want them to do. * ACTION ITEM 6: Add text to the description of mechanism B, clarifying that it would need to be further explored whether there is an organization that can meet ICANN’s requirements. * ACTION ITEM 7: further emphasize in the descriptions of the different mechanisms that this is a one-off allocation, which must be factored into any decision about a mechanism. For example, foundations are not typically formed for short-term purposes. * Discussion Item: Comment from Marilyn Cade on page 9 regarding startup costs for Mechanism C. * Staff response – request for clarification about whether time for IRS approval, legal fees to draft bylaws and agreements are necessary for mechanisms A and B. * One issue that has surfaced is that every action that ICANN Board and Org takes is subject to accountability mechanisms. Depending on the setup, the Board has some concerns about individual challenges to grant decisions. * The Board has concerns about using a great deal of the funds in these accountability mechanisms. * In grantmaking processes, there is language that indicates that decisions are final, but it might be difficult to use this language in the ICANN environment. * It is conceivable that a Bylaws change might be needed to make sure that granting processes are excluded from accountability mechanisms. * ACTION ITEM 8: (Marilyn Cade comment on page 9) Add to startup costs that possible changes to bylaws may be needed and that there may be associated with legal fees for mechanisms A and B. The only difference would be that they do not require IRS approvals that will be required for Mechanism C. * Section 4.2 is a new section calling out elements of the preamble in response to comments that the preamble should be more prominently featured. * ACTION ITEM 9: In the new section 4.2, add footnote with quote from Board letter regarding the text "in service of ICANN's mission" * Discussion Item: Comments from Judith Hellerstein and Maureen Hilyard on Page 22 noting that regarding funds used by the ICANN organization distinct from the granting process, for example to replenish the reserve fund. Both comments disagree with this use of funds. * Clarification - comment is focused on the general funding of the reserve. Funding of specific projects might be more appropriate. * The CCWG did not discuss in depth whether there should be a replenishment of the reserve fund. * Some support expressed for allowing ICANN or constituent part being eligible through the same channels as other projects. * The reserve fund issue is the subject of a seperate conversation, therefore it is unclear if this discussion should also be undertaken within the CCWG. * Question: where is seperate conversation occuring regarding reserve fund? * Response: It would be a decision taken by the Board in collaboration with the SO/AC chairs. * Does the seperate conversation preclude the CCWG from having an opinion on this topic in parallel? * It might be even more complicated if these two tracks happen in parallel without the CCWG providing input. * ACTION ITEM 10: (Comments from Judith Hellerstein and Maureen Hilyard on Page 22) Clarify in a footnote that there is a separate conversation occuring regarding funds going to the reserve fund and make clear where this discussion is taking place (primarily at the Board level in collaboration with SO/AC chairs - to be confirmed by Becky). Focus response to this charter question on the second scenario, in which funds are allocated through a granting process. Any decision about an allocation outside of the granting process would need to take place within ICANN and not through an external organization. * Comment: If funds are allocated to ICANN through the chosen mechanism, the rules for the granting process would need to be completely rewritten. * Question: Does the CCWG want to make a recommendation regarding whether ICANN or a part of ICANN can apply for grant funds? Or should this remain as an open question for community input in the public comment? * Input: some support for puting this forward as a question for comunity feedback. * ACTION ITEM 11: Add in response to charter question 10 that at this stage the CCWG is not putting forward a recommendation about whether ICANN or a part of ICANN may be a grant recipient. The CCWG is seeking community input on this issue. * Preamble on page 38: a section of the text appears to be a duplication of a part which was rewritten and included later in the preamble. Staff proposes to remove the highlighted text. If this is incorrect, CCWG is encouraged to let staff know. 4. Determine how to deal with any remaining issues, if any. ACTION ITEM 12: Staff will update with proposed changes, recirculate to the group by the end of this week. CCWG is encouraged to suggest any further edits that need to be applied. 5. Confirm next steps and next meeting, if needed * Based on the input and conversation today, it does not appear that there are major outstanding issues. * Suggestion: schedule call in two weeks as a placeholder with the option to cancel if remaining edits can be resolved on the mailing list. This meeting would be on the 4th of October. If there are only a few items to discuss the call can be shorter than the allocated time. * Target date is 8 October to publish the Initial Report. ACTION ITEM 13: Staff will draft and share with the CCWG announcement regarding the public comment to make sure everyone is comfortable with the langauge. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Newsletter - September 2018 edition - CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Emily Barabas Sept. 20, 2018

Sept. 20, 2018

Dear all, This is to inform you that the latest edition of the CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds newsletter has been published. The newsletter is attached and available on the group’s wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/qyQhB. The newsletters are aimed at keeping chartering organizations and others interested up to date regarding the current status of the work by this group. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Proposed agenda for Thursday's meeting and updated draft Initial Report for your review
by Marika Konings Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 2018

Dear All, Thank you all for your input on the draft Initial Report (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CL_fZruLuH3baCDWDkZXUeMel8ghkY3yN6Npc74…) Staff has gone ahead and incorporated these comments into the draft Initial Report (see attached). Highlighted in yellow are those comments that will require further input or discussion. For some of these, staff has suggested a path forward but it would be good to hear your input before implementing. For those comments not highlighted, staff has incorporated the change suggested or made updates to address the comment made. These changes can be viewed in redline format. The proposed approach for Thursday’s meeting is to focus on the comments highlighted in yellow. Of course, if you are of the view that some of the non-highlighted comments or the proposed redline changes should be further considered, please share this with the list. Best regards, Marika =============================== Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 20 September at 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates 3. Overview of input received on draft Initial Report * See proposed redline changes to Initial Report to address comments * See remaining issues / questions highlighted in yellow for further discussion 1. Determine how to deal with any remaining issues, if any. 2. Confirm next steps and next meeting, if needed. 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

For your review - draft Initial Report
by Marika Konings Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Dear All, As discussed during last week’s meeting, please find attached for your review the draft Initial Report in Word and PDF format. As tasked by the CCWG, the responses to the charter questions in section 5 are derived from the CCWG deliberations to date as well as the input provided by external experts. Similarly, the draft preliminary recommendations and implementation guidance are derived from those same responses – these are not staff recommendations or interpretations. It is now up to the CCWG to review the Initial Report and identify the areas where changes, additions and/or further clarifications are needed. As outlined during the last meeting, the proposed process and timeline is as follows: Proposed process: * Please do not submit a redline of substantive items in the text, as it will be difficult to reconcile possible conflicting positions and input from many individuals. Minor edits, grammar corrections are welcome in redline format. * If you want to comment on a specific passage of text, please identify the page number, line number (see pdf version) and the section, for example, page xx, line x, beginning with the text “. . .” If there is a specific text edit you would like to suggest, please include this in your email. * Minor edits, such as typo corrections, may not require further discussion. If you raise substantive questions or concerns about an area of the text, these will be discussed on an upcoming call, so that the CCWG may seek resolution that is supported by the group. * The purpose of this approach is to ensure that all questions and concerns are addressed, while also ensuring that the text of the report reflects the perspective of the full group as opposed to any one individual within the group Timeline: * As soon as possible, but no later than Monday 17 September - CCWG to identify through submissions on the mailing list which sections/items of the report require further discussion / review. * 18 September 2018 - Leadership team to review items identified and develop call schedule to consider these items (tentative schedule hereunder). * 20 September / 27 September / 8 October – CCWG meetings to discuss sections / items identified (may be modified depending on # of issues identified) * At the latest by 8 October 2018 - Publication of Initial Report for public comment. * ICANN63 – Monday 22 October from 13.30 – 1500 - Present Initial Report to Community and solicit input. As highlighted above, please identify through submission on the mailing list which sections / items of the require further discussion / review by Monday 17 September at the latest. Thanks, Emily, Joke and Marika 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-…>.

3 3

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - draft Initial Report
by Marika Konings Sept. 13, 2018

Sept. 13, 2018

Dear All, To facilitate your input, you may also use this google doc to add any issues you would like to see further considered by the CCWG: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CL_fZruLuH3baCDWDkZXUeMel8ghkY3yN6Npc74…. As a reminder, the deadline for input is Monday 17 September. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 18:44 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - draft Initial Report Dear All, As discussed during last week’s meeting, please find attached for your review the draft Initial Report in Word and PDF format. As tasked by the CCWG, the responses to the charter questions in section 5 are derived from the CCWG deliberations to date as well as the input provided by external experts. Similarly, the draft preliminary recommendations and implementation guidance are derived from those same responses – these are not staff recommendations or interpretations. It is now up to the CCWG to review the Initial Report and identify the areas where changes, additions and/or further clarifications are needed. As outlined during the last meeting, the proposed process and timeline is as follows: Proposed process: * Please do not submit a redline of substantive items in the text, as it will be difficult to reconcile possible conflicting positions and input from many individuals. Minor edits, grammar corrections are welcome in redline format. * If you want to comment on a specific passage of text, please identify the page number, line number (see pdf version) and the section, for example, page xx, line x, beginning with the text “. . .” If there is a specific text edit you would like to suggest, please include this in your email. * Minor edits, such as typo corrections, may not require further discussion. If you raise substantive questions or concerns about an area of the text, these will be discussed on an upcoming call, so that the CCWG may seek resolution that is supported by the group. * The purpose of this approach is to ensure that all questions and concerns are addressed, while also ensuring that the text of the report reflects the perspective of the full group as opposed to any one individual within the group Timeline: * As soon as possible, but no later than Monday 17 September - CCWG to identify through submissions on the mailing list which sections/items of the report require further discussion / review. * 18 September 2018 - Leadership team to review items identified and develop call schedule to consider these items (tentative schedule hereunder). * 20 September / 27 September / 8 October – CCWG meetings to discuss sections / items identified (may be modified depending on # of issues identified) * At the latest by 8 October 2018 - Publication of Initial Report for public comment. * ICANN63 – Monday 22 October from 13.30 – 1500 - Present Initial Report to Community and solicit input. As highlighted above, please identify through submission on the mailing list which sections / items of the require further discussion / review by Monday 17 September at the latest. Thanks, Emily, Joke and Marika 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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
by Emily Barabas Sept. 8, 2018

Sept. 8, 2018

Dear all, Following a request on today’s call, staff has updated the summary of survey responses to include two additional items: * A note at the top of each page explaining the scoring methodology. * A summary at the bottom of each page detailing how many respondents selected each mechanism as first choice, second choice, third choice, and fourth choice, as well as how many respondents suggested eliminating each mechanism. The updated summary sheets are attached in XLS and PDF and are also available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/EQiNBQ. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 12:36 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 6 September 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. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC * Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates * Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Review of survey responses a. Responses received (see xls distributed prior to the meeting) b. Support for eliminating one or more mechanisms from detailed consideration in the Initial Report? * Note that the first choice of respondents was scored with a 4, second choice with a 3, etc. Highlighted in yellow and with zero points, those mechanisms that people recommended deleting from detailed consideration in the Initial Report. * Quite some support to eliminate mechanisms 4 and also (but lesser so) mechanism 3. * It is not a question of eliminating a mechanism, as all mechanisms would be covered / explained in the Initial Report, but the section focusing on responding to the charter questions would only focus on those mechanisms that were highest ranked by the CCWG. * 11 respondents rated mechanism 1 as their first choice, 9 respondents rated mechanism 2 as their first choice, 3 rated mechanism 3 as their first choice, no one ranked the mechanism 4 as their first choice. * Some choices may have been made based on assumptions that may not be correct, for example, in relation to division of responsibilities in mechanism 2? * Concern about lack of input from members. Should report on the response rate. * Agreement to discard mechanism 4 from detailed consideration, treat mechanism 3 with a very light touch, compared to mechanism 1 and 2. * Suggestions may come in during public comment that may require further consideration. * Staff will factor this into the drafting of the Initial Report - first draft will be based on CCWG deliberations to date and external input provided to date. Up to the CCWG to then discuss and modify as needed. * CCWG could also decide to call out certain questions it would like to request specific input on. 4. Confirm remaining steps & proposed timeline 5. Discuss approach for reviewing Initial Report * See timetable circulated during the meeting * Early next week (week of 10 September) - Staff to circulate draft CCWG Initial Report for review. * As soon as possible, but no later than Monday 17 September - CCWG to identify through submissions on the mailing list which sections/items of the report require further discussion / review. * 18 September 2018 - Leadership team to review items identified and develop call schedule to consider these items (tentative schedule hereunder). * 20 September / 27 September / 8 October – CCWG meetings to discuss sections / items identified (may be modified depending on # of issues identified) * At the latest by 8 October 2018 - Publication of Initial Report for public comment. * ICANN63 – Monday 22 October from 13.30 – 1500 - Present Initial Report to Community and solicit input. * Proposed process for providing feedback on the Initial Report: * The document will be circulated to the CCWG in MS Word and PDF formats (the latter with line numbers). * Please do not submit a redline of substantive items in the text, as it will be difficult to reconcile possible conflicting positions and input from many individuals. Minor edits, grammar corrections are welcome in redline format. * If you want to comment on a specific passage of text, please identify the page number, line number and the section, for example, page xx, line x, beginning with the text “. . .” If there is a specific text edit you would like to suggest, please include this in your email. * Minor edits, such as typo corrections, may not require further discussion. If you raise substantive questions or concerns about an area of the text, these will be discussed on an upcoming call, so that the CCWG may seek resolution that is supported by the group. * The purpose of this approach is to ensure that all questions and concerns are addressed, while also ensuring that the text of the report reflects the perspective of the full group as opposed to any one individual within the group 6. Confirm next meeting (Thursday 20 September at 15.00 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…>.

2 2

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 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, 06 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-06sep18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5518ks240l/<https://participate.icann.org/p5518ks240l/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=8cd7cc953dd26b6e…> 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/bhdpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Bisland

1 0