March 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Updated templates and action items
by Marika Konings April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Dear all, Please find attached the updated public comment review templates following the CCWG meeting at ICANN64. Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen, please take note of the following action item in relation to comment #4 (charter question #2) and ideally provide your proposed language ahead of the upcoming CCWG meeting: * CCWG agreement: Review example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflects the above discussion. (Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion). All, please take note of the following action item in relation to comment #1 (charter question #3) and share your feedback on the mailing list: * CCWG to review the ICANN Board letter and reconsider during the next meeting whether or not to add the Board’s language (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/2018-10-05%20Beck…) Best regards, 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<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…>.

10 11

Attendance, Recordings & Adobe Connect Chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call / Wednesday, 27 March 2019 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

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 Wednesday, 27 March 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-27mar19-e…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4vtgp1khvc/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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/kQ5IBg Thank you! Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken March 27, 2019

March 27, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC) Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS 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. Marilyn Cade is suggesting to have a role call. Every participant is to state its role and affiliation. Note by staff: only members and participants are invited to the CCWG Auction Proceeds calls. Each chartering organization was able to appoint up to 5 members, while anyone is able to sign up as a participant. There is no concept of "voting members". The group needs to reach a consensus decision. Membership / participant / observer information can also be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw Action item #1: When joining the AC room for future calls, members and participants to include behind brackets whether they are a member or participant, and for members to specify their appointing organisation. This helps to have an overview of the affiliations of those participating in the call. 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Discuss commitment and timeline for delivering Final Report by ICANN65 (see draft timeline attached) How can we ensure that we have sufficient comment from all members to do the work and to finalise it? Chair aims to conclude the work by this group by the Marrakech meeting (ICANN65) Marika mentioned that the Policy Forum in Marrakech is a shorter meeting, less flexibility to have parallel meetings. Afternoons are dedicated to cross community sessions. Sufficient participation needed in order to have a productive meeting. Carving out time for this group means other groups may not be able to meet. a. Is everyone committed to put in the work required to deliver a Final Report by ICANN65? Marilyn: ICANN65 deadline is not realistic. Support from the chartering organisations is needed. Unlikely that ICANN65 can provide a workspace of at least 4 hours, needed to finalise much of our work, if we even meet the proposed timeline. We should take a slightly extended timeline and push forward on achieving decisions. Many people will not have travel funding. Those that cannot attend in person should still be able to contribute. Chair is concerned that the money is frozen even longer before the process of building the implementation team can start. Question regarding how to add sessions to the schedule. Marika clarifies that for the policy forum all requests need to go through an SO/AC to get a session on the schedule. The CCWG effort is part of the GNSO room allocation. For the policy forum 7 slots are set aside for cross-community sessions or high interest sessions, and we are not able to schedule anything against those slots. Staff is hopeful to be able to secure a 4h block. This is not a staff decision, factoring in needs of other groups, and ok by GNSO leadership team. Planning deadline around 27 April. GNSO and ccNSO have already working on a draft schedule. EPDP also wants as much time as possible. Chair: ideally we should have a longer session at ICANN65, aim for a very early draft to be ready by ICANN65, to be finalised at that meeting. Further work after Marrakech will be needed. Workplan to be fine-tuned, depending on how much time can be carved out at ICANN65. b. How can productivity be enhanced? Longer calls, more calls, more mailing list activity? * Marika: meeting the Marrakech deadline is challenging with the current pace. Target and goal are not realistic if does not match with the workload scheduling. * Maureen: task assigned to sub-groups are not always clear. Just getting started already took quite some time. Marilyn: we should appoint a lead to these sub-groups, to ensure the work gets done. * Erika suggests to have calls with a 2,5 h duration? Test this for the next 2 calls. Comments regarding the preference for a max 2h call. Sebastien: check that the extension does not conflict with other calls. In principle agrees to move to 2 hours. Chair suggests to keep having calls every 2 weeks, but instead of 90 minutes, have calls for 120 minutes. * Marika reminds group members what the focus of the group is: What - if anything - needs to be changed to the initial report? Look at examples in the annex, guidance that is provided in the annex. Summary of the discussions: * have a very early draft ready by Marrakech * aim for a longer session at ICANN65 * extended duration of the 2-weekly calls. From 90 to 120 minutes * discussions by the CCWG to be continued after Marrakech 4. Follow up on action items coming out of ICANN64: a. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion Marilyn will take the lead. Draft to be shared with full group on mailing list, if needed discussion can be scheduled during the next call. b. Comment #1 (charter question #3) - CCWG to review the ICANN Board letter and reconsider during the next meeting whether or not to add the Board’s language Consensus to add a clarification to the report, to make clear what the Board envisaged role is? In principle there was no objection. This refers to charter question number 3, and guidance provided regarding the implementation phase. Some of questions were raised regarding the role of staff and the board. This was discussed in Kobe as well: neither Board nor staff will be approving or evaluating individual projects. Action item #2: Report clarification: to be discussed again during the next meeting, due to its importance. Letter to be circulated again to the CCWG. c. Status of FAQs staff aims to share the draft to the mailing list, prior to the next meeting. e.g. will address questions regarding for instance legal and judiciary requirements, and the board input provided. Action item #3: staff to follow-up on status of FAQs via the CCWG AP mailing list 5. Continue review of public comment templates: a. Charter question #4 input (see template attached) during the previous meeting, we left off at comment number 7. suggestion to keep the original proposal. b. Charter question #5 input (see template attached) comment by ICANN Board. This is an area where further guidance has been provided in previous letters. Erika's suggestion for further investigation into an appropriate mechanism to define COI Grant distribution mechanism is a different process than what ICANN does within its own processes. Implementation team should do more examination of what appropriate COI practices are. Drafting needed of the guideline for the implementation team. Carolina Caeiro: I agree with the idea that the implementation team should take care of outlining in detail the provisions to avoid CoI. Perhaps we can reinforce our recommendation language, to say "Robust conflict of interest provisions must be developed and put in place ***at every phase of the process***, regardless of which mechanism is ultimately selected. Action item #4: Regarding COI: leadership team to formulate language, based on Carolina's proposal c. Charter question #6 input (see template attached) Marilyn: concern about inclusion and exclusion. Who can benefit from the project, vs where the proposal comes from. Erika mentioned a basket approach: target certain topics, or certain regions. Maureen Hilyard: Perhaps the wording does need to be altered to not exclude deserving projects that may not be in what are considered underserved regions, etc Carolina Caeiro: My read of the comment was different. The rec is about mechanism B (ICANN+external org). I think the fear is that an eternal org would not have a clear sense for what orgs are close to ICANN and supporting its mission? comment number 4 see recommendation from previous comment d. Charter question #7 input (see template attached) 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting Next meeting 10 April 14 UTC 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

3 2

Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting - Wednesday 27 March at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

Dear All, Please find hereby the proposed agenda for the upcoming new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 27 March at 14.00 UTC: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI updates 3. Discuss commitment and timeline for delivering Final Report by ICANN65 (see draft timeline attached) * Is everyone committed to put in the work required to deliver a Final Report by ICANN65? * How can productivity be enhanced? Longer calls, more calls, more mailing list activity? 4. Follow up on action items coming out of ICANN64: * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * Comment #1 (charter question #3) - CCWG to review the ICANN Board letter and reconsider during the next meeting whether or not to add the Board’s language * Status of FAQs 5. Continue review of public comment templates: * Charter question #4 input (see template attached) * Charter question #5 input (see template attached) * Charter question #6 input (see template attached) * Charter question #7 input (see template attached) 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting Best regards, 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<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…>.

2 1

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] Call for applications: Introduction to Network Operations Course
by Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou March 21, 2019

March 21, 2019

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Betel Hailu <hailu(a)isoc.org> Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 07:25 Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Call for applications: Introduction to Network Operations Course To: africann(a)afrinic.net <africann(a)afrinic.net> VERSION FRANCAISE CI-DESSOUS Greetings, The Internet Society is inviting applications for individuals interested in the Introduction to Network Operations Course <https://isoc-inforum.afrinic.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Introduction%20to…>. The course will be run monthly in English and French with the registration beginning on the third Monday of every month and closing on the last Wednesday of every month. *The current application closes on the 27th OF MARCH 2019 or after 300 Registrations*. Applicants applying in this window will take the course from the *1st of APRIL 2019 to the 6th of MAY 2019*. The e-Learning course will be delivered through Moodle and covers introductory topics on UNIX/Linux, Networking and DNS. The course will be delivered in English and French. Below are the links to the applications. *English:* https://bit.ly/2TMIUdT *Application closes on the 27th OF MARCH OR AFTER 300 REGISTRATIONS*. We encourage you to share information about this course with people in your network who have an interest in building skills in UNIX/Linux, Networking, and DNS. ------------------------------------------------------- Salutations, L'Internet Society invite les personnes intéressées par le cours "Introduction aux opérations réseau: UNIX / Linux, Réseaux et DNS <https://isoc-inforum.afrinic.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Intro%20Netops%20…>“. Le cours se déroulera tous les mois en anglais et en français, l'inscription commençant le troisième lundi de chaque mois et se terminant le dernier mercredi de chaque mois. *Les inscriptions s’arretent le 27 mars 2019* *OU APRÈS 300 INSCRIPTIONS*. Les candidats qui postulent dans cette vague suivront *le cours du 1 avril au 1 mai 2019.* Le cours d'apprentissage en ligne sera dispensé par Moodle et couvrira des sujets d'introduction sur UNIX / Linux, Networking et DNS. Le cours sera offert en anglais et en français. Voici les liens vers les applications. *Français*: https://bit.ly/2FegajU *Date limite pour les inscriptions : **27 mars 2019* *OU APRÈS 300 INSCRIPTIONS.* Nous vous encourageons à partager des informations sur ce cours avec les personnes de votre réseau qui ont un intérêt à développer des compétences dans UNIX / Linux, Networking et DNS. Regards, *Betel Hailu *| *Communications Coordinator – Africa Regional Bureau *|* Internet Society* skype: betty.hailu | *www.InternetSociety.org <http://www.InternetSociety.org> *| *Follow Us * [image: iption: Macintosh HD:Users:betelhailu:Desktop:facebook.png] <https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica>[image: iption: Macintosh HD:Users:betelhailu:Desktop:twitter.png] <https://twitter.com/ISOC_Africa> _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann

1 0

Notes and action items from 11 March new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
by Marika Konings March 18, 2019

March 18, 2019

Dear All, Apologies for the delay, but please find below the notes and action items of last week’s CCWG meeting. As a reminder, the next meeting has been scheduled for 27 March at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika CCWG Auction Proceeds Monday 11 March, 2019 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates 3. Brief overview of the objective of the CCWG and status of work * See slides presented during the meeting (https://community.icann.org/x/OKQWBg) * Leadership expressed desire to complete work by ICANN65 – at which time a decision would need to be made on whether a new public comment period is necessary Discussion in relation to mechanism A, B and C * It was emphasized that certain aspects, such as independence of evaluators, Board legal and fiduciary requirements, will be the same regardless of which mechanism is chosen. * It was pointed out that mechanism C, foundation, could be in-house or external – some expressed a view that in order to ensure independence, it would need to be external. * Mechanism B – it was noted that some comments seem to have favored this mechanism, but without necessarily having clarity or agreement on which aspects of the work would be outsourced to the external entity. * Some pointed out that the favoring of C could be the result of a misunderstanding of the role of ICANN Org in the context of mechanism A – ICANN Board or ICANN staff will NOT evaluate or select individual projects, this would be done through independent evaluators. * If various mechanisms are provided, it really needs to be clear what each mechanism means and includes (and what it doesn’t). The leadership team therefore recommends to identify topics that will have to be addressed in all mechanism - for example fiduciary and legal obligations - in an identical way and separate these topics from topics that have to be differentiated, based on the mechanism selected. * Board input: whatever recommendation CCWG makes, it will not be Org or Board deciding on individual projects. Mission, values and fiscal responsibility are the key factors. * Re-evaluate legal advice / comments from Board – put this in the form of an FAQ so it is easily digestible. Make sure to provide a link to the full record. These documents would also guide the implementation phase. Action item: Staff to further develop FAQs and share these with the CCWG. 4. Continue review of public comments: a. Charter question #2 input (see template attached) Comment #4 – since there is a statement that these funds cannot be used on activities that are already funded by the ICANN budget, would need clarity whether another entity could work on this project as this would be considered consistent as ICANN already works on this, but it could probably not be used to fund a specific project that is already being funded. Differentiate between the label / topic and a specific project. CCWG may need to further consider how limited or broad may go with regards to whether or not something that ICANN Org has funded previously could be funded, or whether it is only intended for projects that ICANN Org has not funded previously. Need to be clear about this and not leave a question mark. The more it looks like operational work, it gets close to crossing the line. Highlights the importance of independence of evaluators to make these decisions. If it is currently or more recently funded, it should not be eligible. Could develop grant-making guidelines which specifically either exclude line items funded in the ICANN budget. But grantmaking could still be guided by the Strategic Plan goals. CCWG response: Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements. CCWG agreement: Review example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflects the above discussion. (Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion). Comment #5: CCWG agreement: leadership team to review the language and make a recommendation on whether or not further clarify the language. Comment #6: See CCWG agreement #4. CCWG agreement: review evaluation guidelines to make sure that sufficient reporting requirements are included. Comment #9: Would need to confirm legal requirements and whether this would be possible. CCWG agreement: request clarification from ICANN Legal whether there would be any constraints that would prevent this from b. Charter question #3 input (see template attached) Comment #1: Action item: CCWG to review the ICANN Board letter and reconsider during the next meeting whether or not to add the Board’s language. CCWG agreement: to be confirmed during the next meeting. Comment #2: It is in the nature of grantmaking that not all projects succeed. It would be good to determine in grantmaking guidelines how that risk will be assessed and what percentage of projects will be funded that are "risky" or "aspirational". CCWG agreement: add ‘reputational risk’ to CCWG’s checklist as an important factor in designing the final mechanism as well as project evaluation. c. Charter question #4 input (see template attached) Comment#4: CCWG is considering a one-off mechanism. If it comes up in the future, the ICANN Board / community can reconsider this decision. No change to be made to the recommendation. d. Charter question #5 input (see template attached) e. Charter question #6 input (see template attached) f. Charter question #7 input (see template attached) (Review of these may continue during Wednesday’s session) 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday 27 March at 14.00 UTC. (Note that the Wednesday meeting at ICANN64 has been cancelled due to lack of expected participation). 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…>.

2 1

Wednesday 13 March F2F meeting cancelled
by Nathalie Peregrine March 10, 2019

March 10, 2019

Dear all, Please note that the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG face-to-face scheduled on Wednesday 13 March 2019 from 17:00 – 18:30 local time has been cancelled. CCWG conference calls will resume shortly after the end of ICANN64, the next meeting will be planned for Wednesday 27 March at 14.00 UTC. Conference call notification and calendar invitations will be sent out shortly. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/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

Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meetings at ICANN64
by Marika Konings March 9, 2019

March 9, 2019

Dear All, Please find hereby the proposed agenda for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meetings this week. As a reminder, the CCWG is scheduled to meet on Monday from 13.30 – 15.00 (see https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961974) and Wednesday from 17.00 – 18.30 (see https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961980) Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Meeting – Monday 11 March and Wednesday 13 March 2019 (ICANN64) 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates 3. Brief overview of the objective of the CCWG and status of work 4. Continue review of public comments: * Charter question #2 input (see template attached) * Charter question #3 input (see template attached) * Charter question #4 input (see template attached) * Charter question #5 input (see template attached) * Charter question #6 input (see template attached) * Charter question #7 input (see template attached) (Review of these may continue during Wednesday’s session) 1. Confirm next steps & next meeting 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

Notes & action items : CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken March 6, 2019

March 6, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 (14:00 UTC) Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS 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 Chair stresses the importance of continued participation by group members. 3. Finalize review of charter question #1 input and confirm CCWG agreements(see updated template attached) Charter question #1. * item #1 staff and leadership team captured the conversation from last call, labeled as "CCWG Agreement". This will help us going through all the comments, what we agreed to do, and after the group has reviewed all comments, we can come up with a Work Plan. some parts can be done in parallel. pro-con overview of the different mechanisms Sarah Berg assisted with. Cost-benefit analysis would hopefully help the CCWG in making its deliberations. Marilyn: low cost sometimes equals low quality. Questioning the idea that icann org has the competency to do this. Do not spend more time on a cost-benefit analysis: there was not significant enough request for that. Would be a big conflict of interest. Erika: cost-benefit analysis would need to be done across the different mechanisms: A, B and C. Topic was indeed raised by only 1 person, but raised by the CCWG many times in the past. Helps us to understand how ICANNorg would approach this. One question would be: how do you see the engagement from currently employed ICANN people with regard to mechanism A, B, and C? in all 3 mechanisms, there would be some kind of engagement by ICANN, because of the oversight and legal and fiduciary obligations. Does the group need more time to reflect on this? Marilyn: posing a question as you posed it, is much much more neutral and does not prejudice the expertise of ICANN org on broader issues. Ching: agrees with what Erika pointed out. If we make a recommendation on C, and if in the implementation phase the group decided to use the money on 2 to 3 projects, the cost management seems to be much lower than if we are recommending mechanism A, where the implementation would say the funds are distributed to many smaller projects. Often we talk about an implementation problem. Ching suggests to think about some of the scenarios, that would help us in formulating a recommendation. Allan: suggestion for the funds to be used for a small number of projects. That would be poor judgement, since we talk about a large amount of money. The risk factor for putting this in a a limited number of projects would be too high. Robert Guerra: there are different cost/benefits for the different options. in terms of setting up a foundation - there's not only a startup cost (legal, accounting processes) , an ongoing cost (administration and oversight), and close-down costs.that's a large admin cost that should, instead, be dedicated to actual projects Becky Burr (Board): The risk level clearly needs to be assessed, but the outcome can't be determined in theory - it depends on what the projects contemplated are Erika: let's focus. Are we doing a neutral, cost-benefit analysis across all mechanisms? completely neutral and objective, light-touch and high-level. Action item #1: Leadership team to prepare a first draft in a google doc of the request that would go to ICANN org regarding what the expectations are of a cost-benefit analysis. CCWG members to participate in the drafting. * Item #2 requires further conversation. Element that is independent of whatever mechanism is chosen. Not necessarily dependent on A, B, or C. But rather depends on the role of the ICANN community. do we need to include the role of the Board in each of these? Erika prefers not to do so. Role of the Board is very important, but we are responding to comments received from the community. We should distinguish between those 2 points. We should define the role of the Board, but not here. Evaluation point: role of the Board. Becky added that the Board's fiduciary role is established as a matter of law. Board made it clear that it is not involved in substantive evaluation of individual evaluations. summarise all elements regarding the role of the Board, to make sure nothing is overlooked. The Board still has a role to evaluate if bigger grants are being distributed. Action item #2 template/overview to be prepared regarding the input received from the Board. To do a cross-check towards the end of the process Action item #3: to be clarified/specified: community/communities & role/roles * Agreement 3: keep open all 3 options for now. Re-evaluate at the end of the review of the public comments. * Agreement 5 Group to formulate questions to ICANN org or Board to ask for further clarifications, based on leadership recommendations Recommendation, based on what ALAC recommended. if a third party would cooperate with ICANN on a mechanism, the COI for the 3rd party shall be evaluated. The leadership suggested whether the COI should be explored beyond the current recommendation. Do we need to do even more, in case of the cooperation with a 3rd party? * Item number 10, page 6 Was not yet discussed during the last meeting. comment from RySG. CCWG should give further consideration to which mechanism best reflects transparency and accountability criteria. Should the funds be limited to charitable organisations? Leadership recommendation being displayed in the AC room. Marilyn feels we need examples. We cannot rely on governmental examples. We also need examples from the private sector that fund NGOs., e.g. PIR, ISOC, not just the European Commission. Allan: any mechanism will be not accountable, unless we would design it like that. Status of charitable organisation is very difficult to obtain. There should be no such requirement. Note that legal / fiduciary requirements info can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/CbDRAw Samantha: Many of the questions raised today, are included in the memo. Action item #3 Group to review the memo on the legal and fiduciary constraints. Staff and leadership team to prepare a template, to ensure all answers provided are easily trackable. if the CCWG notices that an answer is missing, the leadership team will contact Sam Eisner for further input. question by Erika: is an unincorporated entity able to apply for funding? Samantha: very specific issue. Would a grouping of people be able to apply? That depends also on the legal limitations and where they are from. That is not a question we can provide a good answer to now, since there are too many unknown factors at this stage. Ching: Social enterprises make an impact too. Do not limit ourselves to charitable organisations. Samantha Eisner: There is broader discussion in the legal/fiduciary memo on the types of due diligence that can be done over an entity to make sure they are qualified to receive funds. I think that "charitable entity" might be some form of short hand here to reflect that need. There are legal limitations on the types of entities to which that ICANN as a not-for-profit can give funds. 4. Commence review of: a. Charter question #2 input (see template attached) overarching question: what / if anything / needs to be changed to the recommendations, based on the input provided? * comment 3 short recap provided of the comment, to help guide the conversation. full comment is on page number 5. CCWG to consider whether the objectives are overly broad in light of ICANN's mission? Marilyn: important to understand what the concern is about. Marika: the full detail of the comment is in the document further below. important to review the full comment, to facilitate the conversation, a short summary was provided. Alan: "it should meet these criteria, but we are always constrained between the mission and the bylaws. "editorial correction. as a result of copy/paste it got lumped together. Acton item #4 review the language to see whether it is overly broad, although the CCWG noted that the restraining factor of the ICANN's mission is already referenced. Also consider changing 'and' to 'or' to make clear that one of the objectives needs to be met, not all three. Jonathan: what is the process for deciding what these examples are going to be? and wherther they are within the remit of the bylaws? Erika: This is just an example list for our own guidance, to help us understand what falls within the mission and meets the bylaws requirements. This is nt a template. Decision is up to the implementation team, future evaluators. This is not our role. Comments made in relation to the examples provided in an annex. They are currently part of a separate section. List will be reviewed by the group at a later stage: is the list complete and accurate? * comment number 4 from RySG would work around universal acceptance fall within and support ICANN's mission? Marilyn: we received guidance from the Board that we should take into account. We should also take into account other guidance received, e.g. legal or finance. The Auction funds are not to compete with or replace the icann budget. UA is one example. engagement and participation is another example. We should be careful that we are not replacing or supplementing the ICANN budget. Daniel Dardailler: I think UA is definitively in scope, and the fact that there's currently an envelop to support it coming from the ICANN budget is just an artifact of timing, i.e. it was needed as a support action before the auctions fuding are available Action item #5: postpone the discussion and continue the debate on comment number 4 charter question number 2 either online, and/or at the meeting in Kobe. b. Charter question #3 input (see template attached) 5. Review expected attendance for CCWG meetings in Kobe (see https://doodle.com/poll/sccqqakgiup5vcbi) Not sufficient support for the second timeslot in Kobe (Wednesday : 17:00-18:30). only 6 people indicated they can participate. Responses to the doodle poll displayed in the AC room. Does the group want to keep the 2 slots? Preference to keep 2 slots. 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Kobe meeting) First meeting will be on Monday Action item #6: Group members to review the templates ahead of the meeting, in order to be able to have an informed discussion in Kobe 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

4 4