April 2019 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Recordings, attendance & chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 25 Apr '19

25 Apr '19

Dear all, Please find the attendance & AC chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-24apr19-e… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/0d6ki81pICRhBIu-tk121dtyRLKFVyZs4beQZ… 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/IwB1Bg Thank you! Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday 24 April 2019 at 14 UTC
by Joke Braeken 25 Apr '19

25 Apr '19

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 24 April 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 – DOI / SOI Updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed a. Short introduction to Zoom Provided by Andrea Glandon 3. Update on the status of outstanding action items: * FAQs Staff is working on 2 stand-alone documents: one captures the input received to date from the ICANN Board. Second one relates to the legal and fiduciary requirements. Will be shared with the CCWG shortly. * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * small team action item coming out of Kobe was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “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” which are also referenced in the Board input. * Small team met in the meanwhile, and the proposed language will be circulated with the rest of the group shortly. * Jonathan: action item coming out of Kobe, to look at those 2 topics. Recording available, meeting lasted 30 min. Additional wording was added. Jonathan posted the current draft of the additional text in the chat, upon request of the chair. * Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) 4. Continue review of comments: See templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… 1. Charter question #8 input Q8 | comment #2 * No recommendation for a precise percentage. Overhead will vary as well, depending on the size of the project * Original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead. Chair prefers this. No objections raised by the CCWG * Xavier: Group may want to consider explaining why in the response of addressing the comment, the group thinks not specifying the ceiling is a good approach. While a ceiling is not offered, the group has expressed the recommendation of minimising costs to the extent possible. The mechanisms could lead to different level of costs. Action item #1: Q8 | comment #2 · Stick to the original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead. · Stress that the group recommends to minimise costs, to the extent possible. 1. Charter question #9 input Q9 | comment #1 To be included in the original recommendation, instead of including it in the guidelines. What does the group think? Action item #2: Q9 | Comment #1 · Staff to send the text of the original recommendation to the group. · Leadership team will verify how to address the Board recommendations Follow-up by staff on action item #2: See page 24 and 25 of the initial report. (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93128721/new%20gTLD%20Auct… ) Q9 | comment #2 * Elliot: The comment echoes “motherhood comments”. Rather than addressing them individually, could we have a blanket statement about oversight. All those comments are similar. * Erika: Do we want to make a single recommendation regarding good governance? Agrees with Elliot’s suggestion. Options: recommendation, or in the guidelines? Action item #3: Q9 | Comment #2 A small drafting team (consisting of Erika and Elliot) will review the original recommendations and guidelines, and all comments that related to good governance principles received during the public comment period. Explore the option to draft one single text for the governance recommendations. Proposal to be presented to the group. Q9 | comment #3 * Understanding that the auction proceeds would be separated from the original audit ICANN is doing. Funds would need to be audited once in a year. Separate audit for each individual project. * Xavier: Regulatory requirements pertaining to status of icann as a non-profit organisation. Audit can also mean “re-verifying something”. Annual independent requirement in the US: that audit is not applying to the auction proceeds. Those audits apply to a legal entity, and to all actions by that legal entity. Auction proceeds are not subject to a separate independent audit, but they are audited as part of the annual independent audit by the independent auditors of ICANN, and PTI. * Separate from the independent annual audit: disbursement. * Erika: independent auditors will continue to audit the auction proceeds as part of the audit they do for ICANN. Once we have decided about the mechanism (part of icann, separate entity, foundation ….) we would need to describe a separate audit process. Further discussion to be postponed until a mechanism has been selected? * Maarten: Board is happy to assist. * Erika asked Xavier for input about the ideal scenario Action item #4: Q9 | comment #3 Postpone the discussion for now. To be addressed once a mechanism has been selected Q9 | comment #4 Action item #5: Q9 | comment #4 To be addressed by the small drafting team: explore the option to bring all governance-related good practices into 1 single recommendation. (see action item #3) 1. Charter question #10 input Q10 | comment #1 * Sam is not on today’s call. Erika asks whether we should postpone this, until Sam is available? * Xavier suggests to continue the conversation, and to bring possible questions to Sam’s attention after this meeting. Vanda prefers to have legal input * Carolina: it would be useful to have context about what the current situation is for these bodies. Will help to give a sense to the group, on allocating funds to the SO/ACs or not. * Erika: do not re-discuss things that were previously discussed. Topic needs to be approached carefully. What is legally possible? What is within the icann bylaws? * Maarten: There has been Board advice concerning this topic. * Correspondence records, see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Correspondence * Erika: Topic is phrased in a broader way Action item #6: Q10 | Comment #1 With regard to points raised in public comments that go beyond what was covered in existing advice from ICANN legal and board · Postpone the discussion until further legal input is available. · Board input to be reviewed by the leadership team. · Staff to verify with Samantha Eisner whether there are any additional points to be raised, regarding the original input provided by the Board. Q10 | comment #2 whether constituents parts of SO/AC that have individual legal rights can take part in future AP funding processes. Chair believes this topic was already answered by Sam/Board but we need to clarify with BC if this is what they meant. Action item #7: Q10 | comment #2 BC to provide additional clarification, regarding “SO/ACs that are not directly affiliated with ICANN” Q10 | comment #3 * Erika: Take this off the agenda. Made clear by the board that they are overseeing the budget, if they need access to this amount, that is a possibility. Up to SO/AC to discuss * Maarten: If this would happen, this would be a Decision that is subject to Empowered Community consideration (like all Board decisions) so the Board would be careful in doing so Action item #8: Q10 | comment #3 CCWG will not change its original recommendation Q10 | comment #4 SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can. This point needs to be clarified Action item #9: Q10 | comment #4 Leadership team to review the advice received to date. Further clarify that SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can. Q10 | comment #5 Action item #10: Q10 | comment #5: CCWG will not change its original recommendation Q10 | comment #7 * Leadership recommendation is not responding to the original point. It is addressing the previous topic. * Goes to same basket as first point. Action item #11: Q10 | comment #7: CCWG to first take a decision on the mechanism, and then further discuss this topic. Judith: ALSes are separate entities. Members of SOs/ACs or Cs have to be treated differently than the SOs/ACs Erika: SO/AC will not be able to apply for the funds. Constituents that are legal entities would be able. But: this needs to be verified by the leadership team. To be cross-referenced with the comments received on this topic and the input provided by ICANN Org and the Board. Q10 | comment #8 Action item #12: Q10 | comment #8 Staff to review work plan and to determine when would be best to address the response to the 5 October 2018 Board letter. Q10 | comment #9 & #10 To be taken off the agenda. Similar to topic previously discussed. Action item #13: Q10 | Comment #9 & #10 CCWG will not change its original recommendation 5. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 8 May at 14.00 UTC. Thank you all. Bye. 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

proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday 24 April 2019 at 14 UTC.
by Joke Braeken 23 Apr '19

23 Apr '19

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 24 April 2019 at 14 UTC. Attention: * This call will be held via Zoom * To become familiar with zoom, kindly refer to the e-mail staff sent around, entitled ”PLEASE READ: Transitioning to Zoom”. 2 useful documents with further info about zoom were added in attachment to the current email as well * Zoom does not allow participants to scroll the documents that are being displayed, so it might be a good idea to open the background documents on your laptops during the call on Wednesday, should you find this convenient. (see review templates published here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… Best regards, Joke Braeken New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday 24 April 2019 at 14 UTC | Proposed agenda: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates * Short introduction to Zoom 1. Update on status of outstanding action items: * FAQs * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) 1. Continue review of comments: * Charter question #8 input * Charter question #9 input * Charter question #10 input See templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… 1. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 8 May at 14.00 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

1 0

PLEASE READ: Transitioning to Zoom
by Nathalie Peregrine 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Dear all, As you may already know<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/transitioning-icann-s-remote-participation-…>, ICANN is replacing the Adobe Connect tool with Zoom. As with all transitions, there will be a learning curve for community members as well as for staff but through the tools, information and proposed next steps outlined below, we hope we can make this transition is as smooth as possible. The complete roll out is expected to be finalized by ICANN65, Marrakech, however many groups will be noticing their calls scheduled on Zoom as of next week. Please see below a few pointers which we hope will help get everyone ready. How is staff preparing for the transition? Staff has received training, has viewed training videos and has had the opportunity to go through practice runs in Zoom rooms. This should facilitate our assistance in getting you all up to speed and work with the different groups on transitioning existing practices to the zoom environment. What is available to the community to prepare for the transition? Staff is reaching out to Stakeholder Group and Constituency, as well as PDP Working Group, leadership teams to introduce them to Zoom and ensure they will be comfortable running their first sessions with this new tool. Staff will also present Zoom to community members at the beginning of each conference call to ensure all understand the different functions and how to use them. The attached Welcome to Zoom! document will be presented at the same time. SOAC Support staff will be present during each call to assist. What stays the same? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! document for a visual) Zoom rooms still show participant and chat pods. The public chat pods will be archived and circulated as per usual, the private chat content remains inaccessible to ICANN Org staff). Documents can still be viewed in the Zoom room but please note that this sharing is a screen share which means it is no longer possible to scroll through documents unless the person who is sharing their screen does so. It is possible to join the audio via audio bridge (telephone) or via the computer. Zoom VoIP quality is excellent. It will still be possible to get a dial out for those unable to connect to the Zoom room. What changes? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! And the FAQ documents) Participants need to click on the participant list and the chat to activate them. This just takes two seconds. The content of the chat only appears from participant connection time. This means if you joins 4 mins late, you will not be able to access the first 4 mins of the chat. Zoom is notified of this and is looking into resolving the issue. The entire content of the chat transcript will however be available immediately after the end of the call once it gets posted / circulated by the host. Several documents can be viewed at the same time if several staff members are screensharing, this will allow you to navigate (as applicable) to Notes, Agenda and Documents in your own time during the call. Documents will be able to be shared via the chat to allow all to download materials to their computers during the call. The mobile app does not require you to remain in the app in order to hear the zoom room audio. Please open the attached FAQ document for any additional queries you may have. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let us know – our objective is to make sure this transition is as smooth as possible. Kind regards, The GNSO Team 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

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Dear all, Please find the attendance & AC chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-ccwg-new… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p96d8cppsm8/?proto=true 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/rxZIBg Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

action items & informal notes: CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 10 April 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. * Reminder: Action item #1 from previous meeting: 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 organization. This helps to have an overview of the affiliations of those participating in the call. 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Update on status of outstanding action items: a. FAQs * Frequently asked questions. * Staff is working on 2 stand-alone documents: one captures the input received to date from the ICANN Board. Second one relates to the legal and fiduciary requirements. * Aim: staff intends to share the final document well in advance of the next meeting. b. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * What Marilyn posted to the whole list = intended as the draft of what was discussed in the small group? Unclear to Elliott. Small group did not make much further progress than what was posted on the CCWG mailing list. No substantive work done to date. * Maureen referred to the discussion around UA and others, projects that are already funded. What is achieved from the project? No consolidated statement yet. Discussion on what is appropriate or not - when making applications - that have previously been funded by ICANN. * Marika mentioned that as a reminder, the small team action item coming out of Kobe was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “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” which are also referenced in the Board input. (see email by Erika in response to the thread) * Process comment by Allan: if we want to come to closure, Allan suggests to schedule a meeting * Substance comment by Allan: we do not want our words to limit good projects without a real reason * Elliott clarifies his comments on the list. Marilyn's position is a valid one. We can take the ICANN mission as the thing that is defining what the project should be, or interpret it as something that limits what the project should be. Is the purpose of the AP to benefit ICANN or to benefit the internet? Most people agreed to fund projects that benefit the internet, within the constraints of ICANN's mission. * Erika reminds the group not to repeat previously held discussions. Broader understanding of ICANN. Future evaluators should evaluate it, but only if in line with ICANN's mission. * Allan says Elliott is asking an important question. Do not restrict things. e.g. There is a fellowship and NextGen programme, but no programme for old people to be brought into ICANN. Would such a project be a valid one? Suggestion to continue the discussion in the small group. * Robert agrees with Elliott, disagrees with Allan. Use the funds to complement some of the gaps ICANN has. e.g. public participation. e.g. Variety of security/tech projects that icann currently does not fund, but that would be still in ICANN's mission. if there is overlap with what ICANN currently does, we need to document this. * Julf remembers from original discussion the following rationale: intent not to allow ICANN as an organisation to benefit from the funds, not to maximise the auction proceeds funds. Action item #1: staff will work on the scheduling of a call for the small group. Aim: have the input by the next call. Ideally discuss on the mailing list prior to that. c. Comment #1 (charter question #3) – See modified language suggested by Eliott (“Neither the Board nor staff will be taking decisions on individual applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.”) * comment from the Board: adding language to clarify that the Board is not involved in taking decisions for individual applications. Support of the revised language was expressed on the mailing list, no one opposed. d. See overview of CCWG agreements to date (see attached) and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) * Shared on the mailing list, together with the agenda. * Tracking on items that the group agreed to work on. How to deal with input that was provided. The document includes the CCWG agreement, the responsable party, current status of that item. * Group might only be able to deal with it at the end of the process, when a new version of the report is ready. * We record the CCWG agreements. The document will help staff in its revision of the initial report, based on what the CCWG agreed on. * Reminder what the focus of this group is: What, if anything, needs to be added or refined to the final report? 4. Continue review of comments: 1. Charter question #6 input Q6. | comment #3: * Focus of the recommendation was on ensuring that projects support capacity building and underserved populations, are part of the objective of new gTLD auction proceeds allocation. Some mentioned that applicants from underserved populations should be able to apply. * Marika: are we saying that we are lowering barriers for applications from other communities? A level playing field that allows every group/region equally to apply. * Erika: Group has a set of guidelines, which will be handed over to the transition team. Help them understand certain topics. This could be a good addition to that list. * Robert: agrees with the outreach efforts. Do we need to define what underrepresented groups or regions are? Make sure that applications are within ICANN's mission. Action item #2: comment #3. Staff to add clarification, aligned with the conversation, regarding the need for a level playing field. Language for the implementation team needs to be added on how to best support applications from diverse backgrounds. Q6 | comment #4: * Marika: comment from ICANN Board. Is the language that is suggested also addressing this comment by the ICANN Board, or is further clarification needed? Action item #3: comment #4. leadership team to revise the language to be included in the guideline. For discussion during the next call. Q6 | comment #5: Action item #4: comment #5. Leadership to make a recommendation, and to propose it to the group. 1. Charter question #7 input Q7 | comment 1: * Erika suggests to accept the language from the Board. Will be included in the FAQ list. * include in the guideline how "independence" shall be defined. * Where did the language come from, included between brackets? Action item #5: comment #1. Staff to review the board input on this topic through the FAQs to be circulated shortly. Are further changes needed? Other items make it clear that board is not involved in the evaluations. CCWG to further consider guidance to be provided for the implementation phase in relation to the criteria to be applied to confirm and ensure 'independence'. Q7 | comment #2: * independent panel. We need clarifications on what we mean by independence. * see action item #5. comment addressed elsewhere Q7 | comment #3: * topic previously covered Q7 | comment #4: * first 2 bullet points: fall. no need to further discuss * define the number? this is up to the implementation team. We define the framework, and should say something along these lines: a sufficient number of evaluators * Leave sufficient space, for the implementation team into the guideline. Action item #6: comment #4. Add guidance for the implementation phase regarding language that refers to a "sufficient group of evaluators", and at the same time leaving enough room for the implementation team itself. * Ching refers to when evaluators were contracted and paid by ICANN to review the new gTLD applications. If a reasonable compensation can bring more experience on board, we should allow for this. * Allan confirms the need to approach professionals for this task Action Item #7: Comment #4. Staff and leadership team to verify whether community involvement in the evaluations is addressed in another charter question? Based on that response, CCWG to consider how the community shall be involved in the evaluation process. * Option: to have a professional team, and a team of community evaluators. * There is a question about whether ICANN or consistituent parts can apply for funding Q7 | comment #5: * Elliott : first part of the comment reinforces that inside the stakeholde rgroup there was a lot of concern that ICANN org was making the determinations. That point has been addressed. Action item #8: Comment #5. clarify language: This has been addressed by previous comments Q7 | comment #6: * not clear what is meant here * Full comment can be read further down in the document Action item #9: comment #6. NCSG reps to clarify what is intended . * Julf Helsingius (NCSG): So yes, just making sure that there is broad (and fair) representation across the community * item to be grouped together Q7 | comment #7: * to be grouped Q7 | comment #8: * civil society is a very broad term * fair and broad representation. Action item #10: comment #8. review comment in context of broader conversation around role of the community. It is more about fair and balnced representation, and not favouring a particular group. Participation in this effort allows for involvement in the design. Q7 | comment #9: * advisory committee overseeing the process not the same as the group that oversees the selection process? * we need a draft. based on the discussions today, and then continue the discussion among the CCWG * are there volunteers available in assisting in drafting the first draft recommendation to this group? Allan is available via email. Action item #11: Comment #9. Leadership team to engage with Allan around a conversation on how such an advisory could look like, what role it could have, in line with the broader conversation of the role of the community in this process. Q7 | comment #10: * makes sense if there are big projects which are complicated in nature (e.g. root zone update) * group to the to do list we just discussed * role of community, and engagement of outside advisors Action item #12: comment #10. to be considered with the overal questions regarding role of the community, and the advisory role. Caution: slight difference with what was debated before. 1. Charter question #8 input 1. Charter question #9 input 1. Charter question #10 input 5. AOB templates for all the topics are posted on the wiki. Action item #13: CCWG members are highly encouraged to review all materials ahead of the meeting. Suggestions for agreements should be posted on the mailing list ahead of the meeting. 6. Next call. 24 April 2019 | 14:00 UTC, for 2 hours Best regards, 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

Updated templates and action items
by Marika Konings 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

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

Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Wednesday 10 April
by Marika Konings 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 10 April at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Wednesday 10 April 2019 - Proposed agenda: 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates 3. Update on status of outstanding action items: * FAQs * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * Comment #1 (charter question #3) – See modified language suggested by Eliott (“Neither the Board nor staff will be taking decisions on individual applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.”) * See overview of CCWG agreements to date (see attached) and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) 4. Continue review of comments: * Charter question #6 input (see template attached, including proposed CCWG agreement based on last discussion) * Charter question #7 input (see template attached) * Charter question #8 input (see template attached) * Charter question #9 input (see template attached) * Charter question #10 input (see template attached) 1. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 24 April at 14.00 UTC.

1 0

**REMINDER: UPDATED EOI DEADLINE 8 APRIL 2019** Expressions of Interest Sought for Chair of GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data – Phase 2
by Julie Bisland 05 Apr '19

05 Apr '19

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> LOS ANGELES –1 March 2019 – The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is looking for expressions of interest to chair Phase 2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The EPDP Team recently completed its Phase 1 work and is expected to commence planning for Phase 2 at ICANN64 meeting in Kobe, Japan. During Phase 2, the EPDP Team will work on a system for standardized access to non-public registration data, topics identified in the annex to the Temporary Specification, as well as a number of carry over items from Phase 1. The GNSO Council is looking to appoint a neutral Chair to the EPDP Team. With such an important issue under consideration, significant responsibility comes with the role to ensure the success of deliberations. The EPDP Team is expected to have regular calls, although it may be necessary to hold calls more frequently if need arises. Additionally, the EPDP Team may have face-to-face meetings in order to meet the required milestones of the EPDP. The EPDP Team is expected to start developing the work plan for Phase 2 at ICANN64 in Kobe for which the GNSO Council may provide further guidance. There will be no compensation associated with the role of the EPDP Team Chair; however, travel associated with any face-to-face meetings may be supported by ICANN org. To express interest in this role, please submit an Expression of Interest to EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair(a)icann.org<mailto:EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair@icann.org> by 22 March 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Please answer the following questions: · What is your interest in this position? · What particular skills and attributes do you have that will assist you in chairing the EPDP? · What is your knowledge of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, EPDP Team's Phase 1 work and associated challenges and requirements particularly as it relates to the EPDP? · What is your experience in and knowledge of the GNSO Policy Development Process, ICANN's consensus policies, ICANN's registry agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement related to gTLD registration data? · Are you able to commit the time required and necessary work needed to chair the EPDP, noting that this to a certain extend will be dependent on the EPDP Team's work plan for phase 2 which is under development? · Conflict of Interest Statement – do you have any affiliation with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter of this EPDP? · Please also include: · A link to an up-to-date Statement of Interest (SOI) - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs · A statement confirming your commitment and ability to act neutrally. Application materials will be reviewed by the Council leadership and will not be shared publicly. Names of applicants, including the recommended candidate, will be shared with the GNSO Council for its consideration. The Council leadership is expected to provide its recommendation to the GNSO Council in time for the GNSO Council meeting on 18 April 2019. Additional questions and inquiries can be sent to EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair(a)icann.org<mailto:EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair@icann.org>. More Information · Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> · Additional information about the EPDP is located in Annex-A1 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> [PDF, 345 KB]. · EPDP Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/0opHBQ> · EPDP wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ> · EPDP Phase 1 Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> [PDF, 2.7 MB] About EPDP On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board approved the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The Board took this action to establish temporary requirements for how ICANN and its contracted parties would continue to comply with existing ICANN contractual requirements and community-developed policies related to WHOIS, while also complying with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Temporary Specification has been adopted under the procedure for Temporary Policies outlined in the Registry Agreement (RA) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Following adoption of the Temporary Specification, the Board "shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN's Bylaws." This Consensus Policy development process on the Temporary Specification would need to be carried out within a one-year period. Additionally, the scope includes discussion of a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data. However, the discussion of a Standardized Access System will occur only after the EPDP Team has comprehensively answered a series of "gating questions" and non-objection by the GNSO Council. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. ANNEX A – CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS As outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group (WG) deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the WG to the Chartering Organization. These tasks require a dedicated time commitment as each call has to be prepared, the agenda concretized, and relevant material has to be reviewed. The Chair shall be neutral. While the Chair may be a member of any group which also has representation on the EPDP Team, the Chair shall not act in a manner which favors such group. The Chair shall not be a member of the PDP Team for purposes of consensus calls. In addition, it is required – that interested candidates have considerable experience in Chairing working groups, and direct experience with at least one GNSO Policy Development Process throughout its lifecycle would be an advantage. Familiarity with the functioning of a Working Group is important to understand the various leadership skills that are necessary to employ during a WG's lifecycle. For example, a chair has to ensure that debates are conducted in an open and transparent matter and that all interests are equally represented within the WG's discussions. During the later stages of a WG when recommendations are drafted, a Chair will benefit from understanding the viewpoints of various members to ensure that an acceptable and effective outcome – ideally in form of consensus – can be achieved. In short, the EPDP Team Chair is expected to: 1. Attend all EPDP Team meetings to ensure continuity and familiarity with the subject matter and the on-going discussions; 2. Prepare meetings by reading all circulated materials; 3. Be familiar with the subject matter, including but not limited to GDPR and data protection laws, and actively encourage participation during the calls 4. Be active on the EPDP Team mailing list and invite EPDP Team participants to share their viewpoints; 5. Drive forward the EPDP Team and assure that discussions remain on point; 6. Work actively towards achieving policy recommendations that ideally receive full consensus; 7. Ensure that particular outreach efforts are made when community reviews are done of the EPDP Team's output; 8. Underscore the importance of achieving overall representational balance on any sub-teams that are formed; 9. Encourage and, where necessary, enforce the ICANN Standards of Behavior and resolve any conflicts in a timely manner. 10. Co-ordinate with ICANN staff and ensure that the EPDP Team is supported as effectively as possible 11. Conduct consistent timely reporting to the GNSO Council on the progress of the EPDP. Finally, as also pointed out the in GNSO Working Group Guidelines, 'appointing a co-chair(s) or vice-chair(s) may facilitate the work of the Chair by ensuring continuity in case of absence, sharing of workload, and allowing the Chair to become engaged in a particular debate.' As a result, similar tasks and skills are expected from vice chairs, although the overall workload may be reduced as a result of being able to share this with the Chair. 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

Follow up on action item #2 - proposed addition to Final Report
by Marika Konings 04 Apr '19

04 Apr '19

Dear All, In relation to action item #2, you can find here the ICANN Board letter: 2018-10-05 Becky Burr and Maarten Botterman to Erika Mann and Ching Chiao CCWG-AP.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64075095/2018-10-05%20Beck…>. The suggestion is to add the following clarification to the Final Report: “The Board will not be taking decisions on individual applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.” If there are any concerns about this addition, please share this with the mailing list so it can be discussed further during the next meeting, if needed. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:32 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC) 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 [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGa…>

6 5