October 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019
by Marika Konings 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Dear CCWG, Someone pointed out that the redlines in the pdf were not visible so please try the attached version instead. As a reminder, your input is due by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 16:32 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - latest version of Final Report by Wednesday 11 September 2019 Dear CCWG, Please find here for your review the latest version of the Final Report: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1hWfSYXuhAalh7F_AkkPDuxU7xf-_bN… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_a_ica…>. Attached you will find a redline version that shows you all the updates that have been made since the previous version but as the large number of redlines may be slightly overwhelming, we have posted the clean version for review and comments. Please note the following: * Text highlighted in blue are those developed by the different small teams and are new compared to the previous version of the report; * Text highlighted in yellow are items that need to be updated after completion of the survey and decision on whether or not to publish for public comment. * Redlines in the attached version are updates in response to comments received on the previous version, clarifications or the result of reorganization of the text because certain recommendations seemed to fit better under a different charter questions. You are requested to focus your review on any ‘cannot live with items’ that need further discussion or consideration. Of course, if you spot any grammatical errors, inconsistencies or language that could be clarified, please note those as well. As a reminder your input is requested by Wednesday 11 September 2019 at the latest (see timeline below). Best regards, Marika Action Expected Timing - By Finalize work on items discussed during today’s meeting Friday 23 August 2019 Staff to integrate agreed to language in draft final report and produce ‘final’ version for review Friday 30 August 2019 CCWG to review draft final report and flag any issues of major concern Wednesday 11 September 2019 CCWG Meeting: * Discuss any major concerns identified * Consider whether a public comment period is desirable Wednesday 18 September 2019 Launch indicative survey on mechanisms Friday 20 September 2019 Publish results of indicative survey Friday 27 September 2019 CCWG members to consult with respective groups Friday 11 October 2019 Re-launch survey on mechanisms Monday 14 October 2019 Finalize report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to CO Friday 25 October 2019 ICANN66 session to present Final Report Wednesday 6 November 2019 – 15.15 – 18.30 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

6 8

Post call / CCWG Auction Proceeds / Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear all, All recordings for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/nYMzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and participants can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to participant. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/> and the main wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/yJXDAw> Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

NOTES: CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting | Wed, 23 Oct 2019, 14 UTC
by Joke Braeken 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14.00 UTC. 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 . Best regards, Joke Braeken 1. Roll call No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Introduction by Becky Burr, seen the new leadership positions in the ICANN Board. Sarah Deutsch and Danko Jevtovic, as new Board Liaisons. 3. Current status of work a. Input received from ICANN Board & ICANN Org in relation to clarifying questions posed by CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respo…) b. Survey not launched yet as input from ICANN Board, especially on mechanism C, was deemed essential to inform survey. CCWG to consider whether to launch poll in light of clarifications, or forego for now? c. Staff & leadership team have proposed a number of updates to proposed Final Report in line with clarifications provided by ICANN Board & ICANN Org. A couple of outstanding items remain for CCWG consideration. d. In light of Board’s suggestion and previous CCWG considerations, proposal is to prepare launch of public comment on proposed Final Report, either before ICANN66 or immediately thereafter. 4. Outstanding issues a. Page 8 – any concerns about the proposed modification of the description for mechanism A? The word “evaluation” was confusing. Marylin: Definition from Mechanism B became too limited. Suggestion to copy the definition from Mechanism A Allan: internal department, but still independent from ICANN org? That is a contradiction. New department, shielded from rest of ICANN. Erika: similar to IANA, this was discussed previously Becky: Allan is correct that the notion that a department within ICANN being independent is difficult. Management of the programme, for administration, would be part of icann. That is the understanding of the Board of this mechanism Sam: agrees with Becky and Allan. Suggestion: “functionally separated”. IANA is an affiliate, but is not independent of ICANN. Remove the “independent”. Evaluations are done by an independent panel. Erika: To avoid misunderstandings, add a sentence when introducing the mechanisms that the mechanisms are further detailed further on in the document. Allan: same level of detail needed for all 3 mechanism descriptions Action item #1: Leadership team to send out revised language 5.1. (selection of the mechanism) with the CCWG * Page 13 – should a poll be conducted prior to publication of the proposed Final Report or is the CCWG in a position to provide a proposed recommendation in relation whether to recommend 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms? Report: 5.1. Selection of the mechanism Feedback is making additional context in answering charter Q1. There is no proposed text yet. It will be the recommendation of the CCWG. Allan: clear board statements regarding the independence, and regarding the funds not being available in one tranche. Do we still support the foundation? Marylin: supported mechanism C. support in 1st round of public comments. Those who supported an independent foundation, understand the overall and overarching requirement from the Board, to have final authority over the direction. Significant amount of independence from ICANN and ICANN org is possible in an ICANN foundation. Erika: separate the financial cost. Has to be included elsewhere, or in the guidelines. Take the key points of the board (oversight) to be attached to all 3 mechanisms. When we go into further details for B and C, we have to make clear that the oversight function remains in place Emily: Incorporate the Board’s point in the response to Charter Q1. Proposed leadership next steps: i. Following finalization of proposed Final Report (ideally by the end of this week), launch indicative survey. ii. Share results of indicative survey prior to ICANN66 to allow CCWG members to consult with their respective groups. iii. Consider chartering organization responses during ICANN66 and plan for definitive survey shortly following ICANN66. iv. Publish proposed final report for public comment, including proposed CCWG recommendation in relation to mechanism(s) shortly after ICANN66 (after completion of survey). c. Page 14/15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to flag that further details be provided in the implementation phase in relation to the roles and responsibilities regardless of mechanism chosen? d. Page 15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to the description of the evaluation panel? Erika: Careful that we do not end up in a situation where we say that they cannot come from the community. ICANN participants? We do not need to be too restrictive. Becky: we were not ruling out anything. They needed to be entirely independent and essentially no potential conflict of interest. Having a consistent panel that makes the selection would be preferred. Erika: they can still come from the participants, but not from the community. That is something we need to clear up, this sounds contradictory. Allan: some said the panel must (not) come from the community, We cannot satisfy all. We need to be precise in our terminology. Emily: The suggested text is based on the following from the Board’s feedback: “the Evaluation Panel should also be independent of ICANN itself and its constituent parts, including the Board, ICANN org, and the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up the ICANN community. As we have emphasized during CCWG meetings, in Board correspondence, and in subsequent CCWG documentation, neither the Board nor ICANN org will participate in the evaluation of individual applications, nor should any SO or AC be represented - directly or indirectly - on the Evaluation Panel itself. As indicated above; however, we do see an important role for the community outside of the actual evaluation and selection process. “ Becky: There are 3 criteria - 1. No direct or indirect representation of ICANN and constituent parts; 2. Expertise; and 3. No potential conflict of interest Action item#2: rephrase: ICANN participants in their individual capacity. We are excluding the organisational part of ICANN, but not the individuals, if they meet all criteria. Marylin’s suggestion to be used from the meeting recording e. Page 17/18/19/22 – note updates made following 18/9 meeting. Page 19. Proposed edits by Erika regarding mechanism C Xavier: would like to comment on the paragraph and propose some edits. Moreover, Xavier has some comments regarding mechanism A. In Mechanism A, the notion that (i) an internal department is created, (ii) it is functionally separated appears to contradict entirely the definition of this scenario. Under this scenario, what is the rationale to have separation of the department within ICANN org? In addition, it is not actually meaningful to define how activities need to be organized within ICANN org as this is a CEO prerogative and authority. f. Page 23 – any concerns about the proposed clarification in relation to mechanism C and ability for ICANN to apply for funds? Erika: Mechanism where the fund is not transferred to the icann foundation, but remains with the mother company. Not the traditional model Argument about self-dealing concerns would be even higher from a public perspective in case the mechanism is in-house. Sam: "self-dealing" as a regulatory risk is different from the restraints that the community would expect to put on ICANN for the handling of the funds. "retention" in this instance means that ICANN does not transfer the funds to the intermediary foundation before releasing to the applicants. There is no aspect of “bribery” here. Also, this response was not about ICANN repurposing auction proceeds funds prior to tranches. We were asked a question about ICANN having access to funds as approved through the evaluation process. Under Mechanism C, there is a self-dealing concern if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds .  there is NOT the same self-dealing concern, regulatorily speaking, if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds under A or B . Marika: There is language that conveys the icann org input, the input provided by Sam. Action item #3: review language. Does it apply to only mechanism C? Or to A and B as well? Suggested text based on ICANN Board feedback on basketing to be included here. Otherwise to be moved to the guidelines g. Page 24 – any concerns about the proposed modification in relation to programmatic adjustments and baskets? h. Page 26 – Consider Board input and decide whether updates should be made to this section. i. Page 27/28 – any concerns in relation to the updates made to change OEC to ‘through a committee if appropriate’ following Board input? j. Page 28 – consider Board input on topic of compensation and decide whether any updates should be made to this paragraph. k. Page 39 – any concerns in relation to the proposed modification to point 5 in line with the Board’s input? l. Any other issues? 5. Confirm next steps: a. Launch of survey – yes/no, timing? b. Launch of public comment period – timing? c. ICANN66 session – proposed approach d. Confirm action items / immediate next steps e. AOB Marika: Conversation needed regarding the timing of the next steps. Survey for instance on whether to recommend one mechanism, or multiple? To be included in the final report that will go out for public comment. Wednesday: we could have a meeting next week. Or we continue the conversation in Montreal, which will further push out the publication date for public comment. Erika suggests to continue the discussion in Montreal. Edits to be made as much as possible, based on conversation today. Action item #4: everyone to review the latest version and flag any other issues / concerns prior to the session at ICANN66. Next meeting: ICANN66| Wed, 6 November | 17:00-18:30 https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116834 Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda and updated proposed Final Report - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC
by Vanda Scartezini 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear Marika, friends I will try since I am in Singapore for ATRT3 and in my way to fly back to my country. If I do not show up due some difficulty to get connects please apologize! Best trips to all to Montreal and see you all there. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 15:07 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda and updated proposed Final Report - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC Dear CCWG, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC. Attached for your review you will find an updated version of the proposed Final Report. Please make sure to review this version in advance of Wednesday’s meeting focusing on the items under agenda item 4. Of course, if there are any other aspects of the report that should be reviewed in light of the ICANN Board and ICANN Org input (see https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respo…) please flag this in advance of the meeting. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI updates 3. Current status of work: a. Input received from ICANN Board & ICANN Org in relation to clarifying questions posed by CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respo…) b. Survey not launched yet as input from ICANN Board, especially on mechanism C, was deemed essential to inform survey. CCWG to consider whether to launch poll in light of clarifications, or forego for now? c. Staff & leadership team have proposed a number of updates to proposed Final Report in line with clarifications provided by ICANN Board & ICANN Org. A couple of outstanding items remain for CCWG consideration. d. In light of Board’s suggestion and previous CCWG considerations, proposal is to prepare launch of public comment on proposed Final Report, either before ICANN66 or immediately thereafter. 4. Outstanding issues: a. Page 8 – any concerns about the proposed modification of the description for mechanism A? b. Page 13 – should a poll be conducted prior to publication of the proposed Final Report or is the CCWG in a position to provide a proposed recommendation in relation whether to recommend 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms? Proposed leadership next steps: i. Following finalization of proposed Final Report (ideally by the end of this week), launch indicative survey. ii. Share results of indicative survey prior to ICANN66 to allow CCWG members to consult with their respective groups. iii. Consider chartering organization responses during ICANN66 and plan for definitive survey shortly following ICANN66. iv. Publish proposed final report for public comment, including proposed CCWG recommendation in relation to mechanism(s) shortly after ICANN66 (after completion of survey). c. Page 14/15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to flag that further details be provided in the implementation phase in relation to the roles and responsibilities regardless of mechanism chosen? d. Page 15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to the description of the evaluation panel? e. Page 17/18/19/22 – note updates made following 18/9 meeting. f. Page 23 – any concerns about the proposed clarification in relation to mechanism C and ability for ICANN to apply for funds? g. Page 24 – any concerns about the proposed modification in relation to programmatic adjustments and baskets? h. Page 26 – Consider Board input and decide whether updates should be made to this section. i. Page 27/28 – any concerns in relation to the updates made to change OEC to ‘through a committee if appropriate’ following Board input? j. Page 28 – consider Board input on topic of compensation and decide whether any updates should be made to this paragraph. k. Page 39 – any concerns in relation to the proposed modification to point 5 in line with the Board’s input? l. Any other issues? 5. Confirm next steps: a. Launch of survey – yes/no, timing? b. Launch of public comment period – timing? c. ICANN66 session – proposed approach d. Confirm action items / immediate next steps e. AOB 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

3 2

Proposed agenda and updated proposed Final Report - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Dear CCWG, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC. Attached for your review you will find an updated version of the proposed Final Report. Please make sure to review this version in advance of Wednesday’s meeting focusing on the items under agenda item 4. Of course, if there are any other aspects of the report that should be reviewed in light of the ICANN Board and ICANN Org input (see https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respo…) please flag this in advance of the meeting. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI updates 3. Current status of work: * Input received from ICANN Board & ICANN Org in relation to clarifying questions posed by CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Respo…) * Survey not launched yet as input from ICANN Board, especially on mechanism C, was deemed essential to inform survey. CCWG to consider whether to launch poll in light of clarifications, or forego for now? * Staff & leadership team have proposed a number of updates to proposed Final Report in line with clarifications provided by ICANN Board & ICANN Org. A couple of outstanding items remain for CCWG consideration. * In light of Board’s suggestion and previous CCWG considerations, proposal is to prepare launch of public comment on proposed Final Report, either before ICANN66 or immediately thereafter. 4. Outstanding issues: * Page 8 – any concerns about the proposed modification of the description for mechanism A? * Page 13 – should a poll be conducted prior to publication of the proposed Final Report or is the CCWG in a position to provide a proposed recommendation in relation whether to recommend 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms? Proposed leadership next steps: i. Following finalization of proposed Final Report (ideally by the end of this week), launch indicative survey. ii. Share results of indicative survey prior to ICANN66 to allow CCWG members to consult with their respective groups. iii. Consider chartering organization responses during ICANN66 and plan for definitive survey shortly following ICANN66. iv. Publish proposed final report for public comment, including proposed CCWG recommendation in relation to mechanism(s) shortly after ICANN66 (after completion of survey). * Page 14/15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to flag that further details be provided in the implementation phase in relation to the roles and responsibilities regardless of mechanism chosen? * Page 15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to the description of the evaluation panel? * Page 17/18/19/22 – note updates made following 18/9 meeting. * Page 23 – any concerns about the proposed clarification in relation to mechanism C and ability for ICANN to apply for funds? * Page 24 – any concerns about the proposed modification in relation to programmatic adjustments and baskets? * Page 26 – Consider Board input and decide whether updates should be made to this section. * Page 27/28 – any concerns in relation to the updates made to change OEC to ‘through a committee if appropriate’ following Board input? * Page 28 – consider Board input on topic of compensation and decide whether any updates should be made to this paragraph. * Page 39 – any concerns in relation to the proposed modification to point 5 in line with the Board’s input? * Any other issues? 1. Confirm next steps: * Launch of survey – yes/no, timing? * Launch of public comment period – timing? * ICANN66 session – proposed approach * Confirm action items / immediate next steps * AOB 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Next CCWG meeting to be scheduled on Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Dear CCWG, Following consultation with the leadership team, we will go ahead and schedule a new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Wednesday 23 October at 14.00 UTC. Prior to the meeting, we plan to circulate an updated version of the Final Report with edits that aim to address the input received from the ICANN Board and ICANN Org. Depending on the feedback received during the meeting, we'll consider next steps including the proposed timeline for publishing the Final Report. Please make sure to review the input provided by the ICANN Board (see ICANN Board Liaison Reply to CCWG-AP Request for Input (July-Aug 2019) 29 Sept 2019.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/ICANN%20Board%20L…>) and ICANN Org (see attached) in advance of the meeting and share any thoughts or follow up questions you have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 14:40 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Responses to Questions to ICANN org from CCWG-AP Dear CCWG, For your information, please see attached. The leadership team has reviewed the input received from the ICANN Board (see ICANN Board Liaison Reply to CCWG-AP Request for Input (July-Aug 2019) 29 Sept 2019.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/ICANN%20Board%20L…>) and will now review the input from ICANN Org (see attached) and propose next steps to the CCWG shortly. Best regards, Marika From: Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 14:15 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> Subject: Responses to Questions to ICANN org from CCWG-AP Dear Marika, Please find attached the responses to the questions the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) sent to ICANN Org. Best wishes, Lauren

4 3

ICANN66: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN66 Meeting Schedule<https://66.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN66 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the full schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. · Downloading creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. · Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All sessions allowing remote participation will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN66 Meeting Schedule<https://66.schedule.icann.org> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg>. Zoom access details for closed meetings will be communicated separately. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, to dial into the audio refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/LYvkBg> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Montreal to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- 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 visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

FW: Responses to Questions to ICANN org from CCWG-AP
by Marika Konings 10 Oct '19

10 Oct '19

Dear CCWG, For your information, please see attached. The leadership team has reviewed the input received from the ICANN Board (see ICANN Board Liaison Reply to CCWG-AP Request for Input (July-Aug 2019) 29 Sept 2019.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/ICANN%20Board%20L…>) and will now review the input from ICANN Org (see attached) and propose next steps to the CCWG shortly. Best regards, Marika From: Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 14:15 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> Subject: Responses to Questions to ICANN org from CCWG-AP Dear Marika, Please find attached the responses to the questions the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) sent to ICANN Org. Best wishes, Lauren

1 0