March 2020 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Dear Anne, Thank you very much. Emily just shared the template for public comment question 4, including the leadership recommendation and CCWG agreement for each of the comments. Regarding CCWG Agreement #18, this is what was included in the template: Add text clarifying that Recommendation #7 is not intended to impact the existing rights of the Empowered Community under the Bylaws. Based on the CCWG discussions regarding the review of the public comments received, the leadership team will be circulating proposed revisions to the report soon, and there will be an opportunity to comment, to make sure we captured everything correctly. Thank you. 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 From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 18:41 To: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC Thank you Joke, with respect to the “Decision” section, first bullet point, I think the final decision was to include the new proposed language in the Final Report (after Sam modifies it) and to include the second question to ICANN Legal and the response in the Implementation Guidance. Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 7:59 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below 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 recordings are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 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. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report (focus on responses to public comment question #4, see attached public comment review template) Comment #1 * No additional comments raised. Comment #2 * Input from ICANN legal received. Comment from the BC: “The BC notes that the CCWG has already recognized that Bylaws must be amended to eliminate Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel from the available remedies to challenge grants. These are amendments to Fundamental By-Laws and which should require Empowered Community approval.” · Question for ICANN Legal: It is the leadership team’s understanding that a carve out would be needed from existing accountability mechanisms as any Board decision could be challenged under the existing accountability mechanisms (including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds). Therefore, an exemption is needed if Board decisions on auction proceeds are not challengeable under existing accountability mechanisms. Can you confirm that this is correct? · Legal Response: Yes, this is correct. This will require an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, as the BC note suggests, in order to effectuate this carve out. The Fundamental Bylaws process requires Empowered Community approval. This does not mean that the Empowered Community must approve the CCWG Final Report, though we should be clear (as there is cross-over between the Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community and the Chartering Organizations for the CCWG) that a Bylaws change is necessary and will be forthcoming. Of course, the Bylaws change will have to be appropriately drafted and will be subject to all appropriate processes. Anne: grants themselves are not Board decisions, but evaluation panel decisions. The response from legal relates to the bylaws amendments. The confusing language is "including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds" - allocation is normally a budget term and we have to clarify that EC powers are not diminished as to the overall Budget item Legal: we understood this as “how things are challenged, at large” Comment from the BC: ". . .The BC is also concerned that the final recommendation does not contain sufficient detail to ensure that the empowered community retains the ability to oversee ICANNs proposed budget and the disbursement of the auction proceeds. In particular, the Empowered Community should retain its ability to enforce accountability mechanisms related to items in the ICANN budget that are proposed to be allocated to grant making activity. The Final Report should also clarify that any changes to the bylaws needed to implement the report are not intended to strip the Empowered Community of its budgetary authority." · Question for Sam: Regarding the text in bold, it is not clear to the leadership team that the Empowered Community is relevant to the allocation of auction proceeds. As auction proceeds funds are kept and accounted for separately, does it even fall within the EC’s purview? · Legal Response: The place where the Empowered Community's powers come in is only in relationship its specified powers in the Bylaws. The Empowered Community powers includes rejection powers on the Five-year strategic plan, on the Five-year operating plan, on the annual operating plan and on the annual budget, which would include grant making activities as relevant. There are no plans to change any of those Empowered Community powers other than in the broader scope of carving out individual application decisions from ICANN's Reconsideration or Independent Review processes. To the extent that there are items represented in ICANN's budget or operating plans that relate to grant making activities, the Empowered Community powers would be applicable. If there are separate budgets or plans that are appropriate to maintain for ICANN's separate grant-making mechanism work, the details of how that interacts with the Bylaws-mandated budgets and plans will need to be addressed during implementation. Allan: the IRP is not limited to Board Actions. Including actions or in-actions of staff. If someone applies for a grant, and we say no, they do not have a right to appeal through the accountability mechanisms. Anne: response form ICANN legal is helpful. Language we had regarding change of fundamental bylaw to be reviewed by Anne. Sam: IRP does not extend to contractors. It is about whether ICANN followed its Bylaws/Mission. if ICANN improperly relies on actions taken by a subcontractor, then you challenge ICANN’s action, not the subcontractor’s action. Emily: I don’t believe there is currently language in the proposed Final Report addressing the Empowered Community. This may be something that the leadership team needs to take back and propose language to include  Sam: in the future, do we need further details regarding the budgetary or planning powers by ECA? Language as currently in place should be sufficient. Allan: no need to mention the ECA in the report, but to be on the safe side, include it anyhow. We are aware of the situation. We understand that to change the EC, we need a fundamental bylaw change Allan: limit in the implementation guidance to the 2nd question. Sam: does not want it represented in the bylaws. Small details could cause interpretation issues in the bylaws Allan: put a statement in the report, that if the EC felt that the tranche allocated to the AP, was either too small/large it could be subject to community action. Erika: this was not yet discussed. Approval by board. Sam: We’d want to coordinate with Xavier on any language that addresses specific budget items Anne: Suggest "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Sam: we probably want to make it a bit broader to reflect that the EC powers are broader than just over the budget, but I think that your language is a good starting point Decision: · frame the issue raised, do not expand language in the report itself, but add to the list of issues that needs to be addressed during the implementation phase. · Add language, based on Anne’s suggestion "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Take into account Sam’s remark regarding making it broader Comment #3 * No further comments by the group Comment #4 * No further comments by the group * CCWG chair expresses thanks for Board involvement and input Comment #5 * Support of the leadership recommendation by Carolina, Anne, Judith, Vanda * Allan: similar to previous discussion regarding feasibility study / assessment. Comment #6 * No further comments by the group 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/YFzjWps03Do8ski9kzKxI4KueUiZ2Ilh1xlBSPGTV…] Thank you all. Stay safe, and take care. 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…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below 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 recordings are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 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. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report (focus on responses to public comment question #4, see attached public comment review template) Comment #1 * No additional comments raised. Comment #2 * Input from ICANN legal received. Comment from the BC: “The BC notes that the CCWG has already recognized that Bylaws must be amended to eliminate Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel from the available remedies to challenge grants. These are amendments to Fundamental By-Laws and which should require Empowered Community approval.” · Question for ICANN Legal: It is the leadership team’s understanding that a carve out would be needed from existing accountability mechanisms as any Board decision could be challenged under the existing accountability mechanisms (including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds). Therefore, an exemption is needed if Board decisions on auction proceeds are not challengeable under existing accountability mechanisms. Can you confirm that this is correct? · Legal Response: Yes, this is correct. This will require an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, as the BC note suggests, in order to effectuate this carve out. The Fundamental Bylaws process requires Empowered Community approval. This does not mean that the Empowered Community must approve the CCWG Final Report, though we should be clear (as there is cross-over between the Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community and the Chartering Organizations for the CCWG) that a Bylaws change is necessary and will be forthcoming. Of course, the Bylaws change will have to be appropriately drafted and will be subject to all appropriate processes. Anne: grants themselves are not Board decisions, but evaluation panel decisions. The response from legal relates to the bylaws amendments. The confusing language is "including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds" - allocation is normally a budget term and we have to clarify that EC powers are not diminished as to the overall Budget item Legal: we understood this as “how things are challenged, at large” Comment from the BC: ". . .The BC is also concerned that the final recommendation does not contain sufficient detail to ensure that the empowered community retains the ability to oversee ICANNs proposed budget and the disbursement of the auction proceeds. In particular, the Empowered Community should retain its ability to enforce accountability mechanisms related to items in the ICANN budget that are proposed to be allocated to grant making activity. The Final Report should also clarify that any changes to the bylaws needed to implement the report are not intended to strip the Empowered Community of its budgetary authority." · Question for Sam: Regarding the text in bold, it is not clear to the leadership team that the Empowered Community is relevant to the allocation of auction proceeds. As auction proceeds funds are kept and accounted for separately, does it even fall within the EC’s purview? · Legal Response: The place where the Empowered Community's powers come in is only in relationship its specified powers in the Bylaws. The Empowered Community powers includes rejection powers on the Five-year strategic plan, on the Five-year operating plan, on the annual operating plan and on the annual budget, which would include grant making activities as relevant. There are no plans to change any of those Empowered Community powers other than in the broader scope of carving out individual application decisions from ICANN's Reconsideration or Independent Review processes. To the extent that there are items represented in ICANN's budget or operating plans that relate to grant making activities, the Empowered Community powers would be applicable. If there are separate budgets or plans that are appropriate to maintain for ICANN's separate grant-making mechanism work, the details of how that interacts with the Bylaws-mandated budgets and plans will need to be addressed during implementation. Allan: the IRP is not limited to Board Actions. Including actions or in-actions of staff. If someone applies for a grant, and we say no, they do not have a right to appeal through the accountability mechanisms. Anne: response form ICANN legal is helpful. Language we had regarding change of fundamental bylaw to be reviewed by Anne. Sam: IRP does not extend to contractors. It is about whether ICANN followed its Bylaws/Mission. if ICANN improperly relies on actions taken by a subcontractor, then you challenge ICANN’s action, not the subcontractor’s action. Emily: I don’t believe there is currently language in the proposed Final Report addressing the Empowered Community. This may be something that the leadership team needs to take back and propose language to include  Sam: in the future, do we need further details regarding the budgetary or planning powers by ECA? Language as currently in place should be sufficient. Allan: no need to mention the ECA in the report, but to be on the safe side, include it anyhow. We are aware of the situation. We understand that to change the EC, we need a fundamental bylaw change Allan: limit in the implementation guidance to the 2nd question. Sam: does not want it represented in the bylaws. Small details could cause interpretation issues in the bylaws Allan: put a statement in the report, that if the EC felt that the tranche allocated to the AP, was either too small/large it could be subject to community action. Erika: this was not yet discussed. Approval by board. Sam: We’d want to coordinate with Xavier on any language that addresses specific budget items Anne: Suggest "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Sam: we probably want to make it a bit broader to reflect that the EC powers are broader than just over the budget, but I think that your language is a good starting point Decision: · frame the issue raised, do not expand language in the report itself, but add to the list of issues that needs to be addressed during the implementation phase. · Add language, based on Anne’s suggestion "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Take into account Sam’s remark regarding making it broader Comment #3 * No further comments by the group Comment #4 * No further comments by the group * CCWG chair expresses thanks for Board involvement and input Comment #5 * Support of the leadership recommendation by Carolina, Anne, Judith, Vanda * Allan: similar to previous discussion regarding feasibility study / assessment. Comment #6 * No further comments by the group 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/YFzjWps03Do8ski9kzKxI4KueUiZ2Ilh1xlBSPGTV…] Thank you all. Stay safe, and take care. 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

6 5

Post call / CCWG Auction Proceeds / Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland March 25, 2020

March 25, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/hiaJBw> (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

Responses from ICANN Legal - CCWG Auction Proceeds questions regarding public comments on the proposed Final Report
by Emily Barabas March 25, 2020

March 25, 2020

Dear CCWG members, Please find below input from ICANN Legal on two questions submitted by the Leadership Team as points of clarification regarding public comments on the proposed Final Report. The full text of the relevant public comments are included in the attached templates for reference. Comment from the BC [Public Comment Question 2, Comment 5]: “The BC notes that the CCWG has already recognized that Bylaws must be amended to eliminate Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel from the available remedies to challenge grants. These are amendments to Fundamental By-Laws and which should require Empowered Community approval.” * Question for ICANN Legal: It is the leadership team’s understanding that a carve out would be needed from existing Accountability Mechanisms as any Board decision could be challenged under the existing Accountability Mechanisms (including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds). Therefore, an exemption is needed if Board decisions on auction proceeds are not challengeable under existing Accountability Mechanisms. Can you confirm that this is correct? * Legal Response: Yes, this is correct. This will require an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, as the BC note suggests, in order to effectuate this carve out. The Fundamental Bylaws process requires Empowered Community approval. This does not mean that the Empowered Community must approve the CCWG Final Report, though we should be clear (as there is cross-over between the Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community and the Chartering Organizations for the CCWG) that a Bylaws change is necessary and will be forthcoming. Of course, the Bylaws change will have to be appropriately drafted and will be subject to all appropriate processes. Comment from the BC [Public Comment Question 1, Comment 5]: ". . .The BC is also concerned that the final recommendation does not contain sufficient detail to ensure that the empowered community retains the ability to oversee ICANNs proposed budget and the disbursement of the auction proceeds. In particular, the Empowered Community should retain its ability to enforce accountability mechanisms related to items in the ICANN budget that are proposed to be allocated to grant making activity. The Final Report should also clarify that any changes to the bylaws needed to implement the report are not intended to strip the Empowered Community of its budgetary authority." * Question for ICANN Legal: Regarding the text in bold, it is not clear to the leadership team that the Empowered Community is relevant to the allocation of auction proceeds. As auction proceeds funds are kept and accounted for separately, does it even fall within the EC’s purview? * Legal Response: The place where the Empowered Community's powers come in is only in relationship its specified powers in the Bylaws. The Empowered Community powers includes rejection powers on the Five-year strategic plan, on the Five-year operating plan, on the annual operating plan and on the annual budget, which would include grant making activities as relevant. There are no plans to change any of those Empowered Community powers other than in the broader scope of carving out individual application decisions from ICANN's Reconsideration or Independent Review processes. To the extent that there are items represented in ICANN's budget or operating plans that relate to grant making activities, the Empowered Community powers would be applicable. If there are separate budgets or plans that are appropriate to maintain for ICANN's separate grant-making mechanism work, the details of how that interacts with the Bylaws-mandated budgets and plans will need to be addressed during implementation. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

(Corrected body) Post-ICANN67 Policy Report Now Available
by Julie Bisland March 23, 2020

March 23, 2020

Dear all, The Post-ICANN67 Policy Report is now available. Please click here to access it: https://go.icann.org/post67 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_post67&d=…> . Thank you. Kind regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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…>

1 0

Post-ICANN67 Policy Report Now Available
by Julie Bisland March 23, 2020

March 23, 2020

Dear all, The Post-ICANN66 Policy Report is now available. Please click here to access it: https://go.icann.org/post67 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_post67&d=…> . Thank you. Kind regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - 25 March 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas March 23, 2020

March 23, 2020

Dear CCWG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 25 March at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report (focus on responses to public comment question #4, see attached public comment review template) 3. AOB * Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this meeting, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

NOTES | CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds | 18 March 2020 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020

Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below 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 . 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. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Continuation of review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report, beginning with Question #2, Comment #4 Public Comment Question #2 Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as listed in Section 1 above, in response to the public comment forum? If yes, please specify what changes concern you and why? Comment #4 * No additional action needed. Comment #5 * 1st part of the comment: Input requested from ICANN Legal. Pending written follow-up later this week. Sam confirmed the BC’s statement is correct. Comment #6 * Webinar at the close of the work by this group. Support by Anne and Yao for the webinar Comment #7 * No comments from the room Comment #8 & comment #9 * Out of scope. Referring to the .com public comment Public Comment Question #3 Comment #1 * Leadership recommendation: No action needed * No comments from the room Comment #2 * Context: see charter question 10 * See public comment question #2. ALAC comment. * Personal opinion by Alan: no rationale for constituent parts of ICANN not to be able to apply. * Judith: many ALSes are independent legal entities. They should be able to apply, but according to same process as everyone else Separate legal entities that may not be able to apply · Anne: if ICANN org would apply for a grant, the grant sum would come into their budget. Icann org has reserved the right to use the funds before they are divided into tranches. How will the implementation review team define the concept of a legal entity? · Alan: wording is clear enough. Carolina agrees. Board was clear that ICANN org cannot apply. · Sam: up to each entity that applies to be responsible for due diligence upon itself. how it is a legal entity? · Danko: Board letter was clear. Budget process is not impacted. · Conclusion: no further changes needed. Comment #3 * Alan: confused by the comment “re-activated”. All funds dispensed, and then additional funds show up? Unlikely scenario. * Anne: limited scope of the CCWG, so whatever mechanism is selected, should be easy to be sun-setted, or reactivated. We were not supposed to create a perpetual mechanism Comment #4 * Anne: not advocating re-opening anything. Wonders if could address this by saying that the definition of underserved populations would be up to the implementation review team. * Currently included in the response for charter questions #6 that these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase * Nothing missing in the text according to the leadership recommendation * Alan: My comment was going to be that my recollection was that the board explicitly said that the selection panel should NOT be a "community group" although individual members could be from the community (but not be there representing them) * Anne: make a cross-reference. Say that we have addressed the things they say we have not addressed. * Community members can participate in their individual capacity as an expert but not representing a particular group Comment #5 * Anne: agrees with leadership recommendations. Suggested change to the recommendation is appropriate * Alan: disagrees. Mandating that the board *must* do a feasibility study, adds another 6-8 months to this process. Trusts the board to make a reasonable decision at the time. * Erika: change current language. *must* to be replaced by (strongly) recommend/consider * Alan: Board to consider doing a feasibility study. Give the board some discretion * Danko Jevtović : BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study  * Sarah Deutsch:  Thanks for these comments, everyone. I don’t think a mandate is necessary and “study” might not be the right word. * Sarah: refers to what the Board said in the public comment period. * Agreement: use “encourage the Board” Comment #6 * review/evaluation * Make sure we use the correct language Comment #7 * Diversity in selecting the group that makes the project selections? We need to verify in our recommendation of the independent group that we are explicit that this group is well-versed, from a very diverse global community * Anne: human rights framework - WS 2 - Board’s obligations with respect to diversity and human rights. We cannot detract from requirements that exist already. * Judith: existing org in all 3 mechanisms. If they all have an independent group evaluating, it should relate to all 3 mechanisms * Anne: I think the ICANN Board and org will be bound by the Human Rights Framework once this is implemented in Workstream 2 work and that this will apply to all mechanisms.  * Agreement: value set by icann needs to be respected, regardless of the entity (A, B, or C). leadership team to add a reference to diversity. Comment #8 * Out of scope 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) Tentative call scheduled for next week (Wed, 25 March 14 UTC). TBC [https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6w_YrCFhoVdaQmiTMHlq3G6SEEMgKhbrL-WZ2FQiC…] Submitting report to chartering organisations: May 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

2 1

Post call / CCWG Auction Proceeds / Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland March 18, 2020

March 18, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LiOJBw> (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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas March 18, 2020

March 18, 2020

Hi Anne, Thanks for your careful review of the notes. We can revisit this issue on the call today to make sure everyone is aligned on the path forward. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 01:13 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: "sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC P.S. I forgot to add that the SSAC Formal Recommendation #1 essentially says the same thing about feasibility study in answer to Question #4: . Recommendation 1: The SSAC recommends that, following the completion and submission of the CCWG’s report, the next step in the process be to have an outside expert with a demonstrated track-record in designing funding programs review the report, comment on its finding and recommendations, and use it as a basis to inform the Board on the design of a grant making process for the auction proceeds that implements grant making best practices. This step should be undertaken before the Board formally considers the CCWG’s Final Report as its advice would assist the Board in its consideration of the CCWG recommendations. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:48 PM To: 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: 'sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC Thanks Emily. I do need to add one item to the agenda as discussed below. I am a bit confused by the notes on the CCWG discussion relative to Comments to Question 1 filed by the BC. This is on page 7 of the Comments to Question 1. The BC comment was to amend the Final Report to include a recommendation for a REQUIRED feasibility study comparing the relative costs of the mechanisms that the WG will recommend. The reference to feasibility study on page 12 of the report is a reference to the idea that the CCWG recognizes that the ICANN Board “may” conduct a feasibility assessment. This is not a Recommendation and it is not even Implementation Guidance. The IPC also made this recommendation – perhaps in response to a different question. The notes from the last call refer to the status of a feasibility assessment as “Implementation Guidance” Thus, the CCWG apparently agreed in the last call that this constituted Implementation Guidance (and did not adopt it as a WG Recommendation). The language of the proposed Final Report does not track with the CCWG Agreement that the need for a feasibility study constitutes Implementation Guidance. Therefore, it is indeed an Action Item for the language on page 12 of the proposed Final Report to be revised to change “the ICANN Board MAY conduct a feasibility assessment…” to “… the Implementation Review Team is advised to conduct a feasibility assessment” or something similar. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 7:35 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday 18 March at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Continuation of review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report, beginning with Question #2, Comment #4 (see attached public comment review templates) 3. AOB * Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this meeting, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0