- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC
by Sylvia Cadena May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Hi again everyone, Same as Marilyn, my apologies for the tardiness to provide input and comments to both the preamble and the examples. I would like to thank Joke and ICANN staff for the hard work to cluster and organize the responses from experts. Their answers are really valuable but having them put together like this is really helpful to find balance and build a structured opinion about the different ways organizations manage and administer funds that support infrastructure development and Internet related projects. I think one paragraph that we might need to consider adding to the preamble as well as an introduction to the examples, should be around how these documents support the charter of the CCWG and the tasks that we were given. Looking forward to the call. Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 9 May 2018 at 10:43 pm To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates 3. Response to ICANN Board: a. Review and proposed edits to preamble (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k…) b. Review and proposed edits to project examples (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0…) c. Next steps 4. Review straw poll survey results (link to summary results to be provided prior to the meeting) 5. ICANN62 Meeting Planning 6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 17 May at 14.00 UTC). Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Proposed agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika ======================== Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI Updates 3. Response to ICANN Board: * Review and proposed edits to preamble (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k…) * Review and proposed edits to project examples (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0…) * Next steps 4. Review straw poll survey results (link to summary results to be provided prior to the meeting) 5. ICANN62 Meeting Planning 6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (Thursday 17 May at 14.00 UTC). Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

REMINDER: Re: Please participate - CCWG AP straw poll survey - deadline for input Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Reminder – please make sure to complete the survey by the deadline. So far, only 5 members and 4 participants have completed the survey. Thanks, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 09:05 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - CCWG AP straw poll survey - deadline for input Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC Dear All, The straw poll survey is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Please provide your input by Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC at the latest. As a reminder, the survey is intended as a straw poll to assess the current thinking of the CCWG with regards to the different mechanisms under consideration. Prior to responding to the survey, you are expected to have reviewed the information and feedback provided by external experts see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> as well as https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>. Also, please remember that key characteristics such as independence when it comes to fund allocation as well as transparency and accountability are expected to apply equally to all mechanisms. Based on the responses to this survey, the CCWG is expected to make a determination of which mechanism(s) should be considered in further detail in the next phase of work in which the remaining charter questions are expected to be considered (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> to review the charter questions as well as the work that has already been undertaken in that regard by the CCWG https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>). Note that for the purposes of the Initial Report, which is expected to outline the proposed CCWG recommendations for community input, the second page of the survey asks you to weigh in on previously agreed preliminary CCWG recommendations as a result of some of the initial deliberations (see https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>). Please note that you will get to page two of the survey after you have completed page one. CCWG members are encouraged to, where possible, consult with their appointing organizations on the responses. Please know that the name of respondents and the results of this survey will be shared publicly (aggregated results, not individual responses). Thanks to those of you who provided input and feedback on the draft survey. 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 [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 1

Please participate - CCWG AP straw poll survey - deadline for input Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 6, 2018

May 6, 2018

Dear All, The straw poll survey is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll. Please provide your input by Wednesday 9 May by 18.00 UTC at the latest. As a reminder, the survey is intended as a straw poll to assess the current thinking of the CCWG with regards to the different mechanisms under consideration. Prior to responding to the survey, you are expected to have reviewed the information and feedback provided by external experts see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B as well as https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7…. Also, please remember that key characteristics such as independence when it comes to fund allocation as well as transparency and accountability are expected to apply equally to all mechanisms. Based on the responses to this survey, the CCWG is expected to make a determination of which mechanism(s) should be considered in further detail in the next phase of work in which the remaining charter questions are expected to be considered (see https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw to review the charter questions as well as the work that has already been undertaken in that regard by the CCWG https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw<https://community.icann.org/x/DJjDAw>). Note that for the purposes of the Initial Report, which is expected to outline the proposed CCWG recommendations for community input, the second page of the survey asks you to weigh in on previously agreed preliminary CCWG recommendations as a result of some of the initial deliberations (see https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw) Please note that you will get to page two of the survey after you have completed page one. CCWG members are encouraged to, where possible, consult with their appointing organizations on the responses. Please know that the name of respondents and the results of this survey will be shared publicly (aggregated results, not individual responses). Thanks to those of you who provided input and feedback on the draft survey. 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<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

4 5

Reminder - review of preamble and project examples
by Marika Konings May 6, 2018

May 6, 2018

Reminder, please provide your input by Monday 7 May at the latest. So far only one person has provided suggestions for the preamble. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:12 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. Dear All, In follow up to action item #1 and #2, the preamble and example documents have been uploaded as google docs to allow everyone to collaborate on updating these documents to address the input that has been provided by the ICANN Board. For the preamble, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. Note that in the first column you will find the input provided by the ICANN Board to facilitate your review. For the project examples, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. Note that this version incorporates the suggestions that were sent by Daniel to the list on 19/4. Everyone, but especially those that volunteered to work on this during the meeting, are encouraged to include their proposed comments and/or edits by Monday 7 May at the latest. Should there be a need / desire to schedule a separate call to work on this, please let staff know and we can assist you as needed. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 17:15 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. Dear all, Please find below some high-level notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1.Roll call * Attendance will be taken from the webex room * Audio only: Kavouss Arasteh, Tony Harris, Xavier Calvez * Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise. 2.Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates No updates 3.Review and discuss proposed response to ICANN Board Draft proposal made by Marika: The letter has been shared with the CCWG as an early draft. The group is advised to review the letter, comments are welcome. A next draft will be prepared, following comments by the group. There is an opportunity to further discuss this during the next call. Preliminary comments have been submitted by Daniel Dardailler. Regarding the preamble: He advises to give more detail on what “good internet” means. Reminder by Erika on our approach: Basic idea was not to identify a philosophical general approach. In working with the board, we now have a much more precise terminology which captures the grey areas. The projects will be in service with the mission, that is the basic idea. We are not dropping the preamble completely. But we should not continue to work on it forever, and it would be good to send it to the implementation team Marilyn supports the intent behind Daniel’s comments. Good amount of work has been done. Focus by board liaisons is much appreciated. However, we are also writing for the broader community, to make sure they understand. Glad to hear we are not discarding our work. Important to keep it. It is difficult to explain to a business person what “in service of icann’s mission means”. The board is very close to what ICANN’s mission is. Sylvia Cadena agrees that we need to continue to work on the preamble. Erika confirmed that a careful balancing act is needed here. Once we send out the next letter to the Board, we will include a status as well. Draft of the newsletter and draft accompanying email to be shared with the group, before it is sent out to the SO/AC leaders. Sylvia Cadena and Marilyn Cade volunteered in the chat to continue working on the preamble. Action item #1: Volunteers who want to work on further reviewing the preamble are kindly invited to step forwards. Next draft of the preamble should be ready in 2 weeks time, by 3 May 2018. Daniel mentioned that sharing a document one day ahead of the meeting is not advisable. 4.Review and discuss proposed update to examples document (see attached) Action item #2: The group is kindly advised to review the list of examples by Tuesday next week, when the leadership team will meet. Thus staff can review the input received, and send an updated version on Wednesday to the mailing list. Volunteers: Marilyn Cade, Mary Uduma, Vanda Scartezini. Action item #3: Staff potentially organise a call with this small group. Review as well the comments made by Daniel and Elliott. Staff will share a new draft, based on the comments received. To be further discussed next week. Page 4, item 4. Written comments will be provided by Marilyn on the list. Alternative wording will be suggested where this will be used as an example. Suggestion: “Development” to to be replaced with “engagement in such activity”. 5.(at 14.30 UTC) Exchange with external experts – Marc D’Hooge, Managerial Adviser, Innovation Finance Advisory, European Investment Bank Erika sent a short introduction to Marc to the mailing list, and the work he has been doing. The CCWG is searching for a mechanism/funding model. One-off amount, obtained via auctions. Our aim is to have a recommendation on the funding model by June. Group is particularly interested on how cooperation/oversight can work between 2 institutions. Short introduction by Marc D’Hooge. Confirmation that the call is recorded. Working at EIB since 20 years, EIB is active in innovation finance since late 90ies. Interesting component added: working together with the European Commission on innovative projects. The cooperation with the European institutions. EIB has the financial expertise, support needed by promoters to the market. Combine grants and financial instruments in an efficient way. If you do not own the expertise on the objective setting side or the financial side, you need to look for partners, that focus on the concrete financial support. ICANN is not a bank, if you would like to bring the money to the market, in line with investment objectives, and link to connectivity, you need to look for a partner who is able to respond to the business needs that you would like to drive finance. Marilyn Cade : ICANN has a responsibility to maintain its tax status and avoid trust issues. Note in the chat from Nadira: I remember ICANN financial advisor said that having return on the proceed doesn't comply with ICANN status The commission had the idea to develop alongside the grants, a financial instrument, where the money invested by the EC not only generated returns, but also where the returns and initial investments can be recycled in new projects of the same nature. EIB now also have projects that combine the grant aspect and the financial aspects, for instance for breakthrough projects in for instance the connectivity range, or energy. Vanda Scartezini has a question regarding the grants distributed in Europe. Marc confirmed that the work of EIB encompasses all member states and also countries around Europe (e.g. Ukraine, nordic countries, Turkey …). Work can be for one particular country, or for multiple countries. Innovation/finance can be done all over the world, but either the project or the promoter needs to be European. Erika mentioned that the main idea is to have a one-off fund, shut down afterwards. Erika invites Marc to explain the tensions, or what he would see as really important in terms of a merger between 2 entities. In case the CCWG would make a recommendation to work with a different entity, what would be the main issues? Marc: reason to look for a partner, is to do things on your behalf, that you cannot do so yourself. The bank is owned by the member states of the European Commission, so they are closely aligned. You want to keep control on what the other partner is doing. EIB has a delegation agreement with the commission all the operational work, related to finding and financing the projects that comply with the objectives set out by the EC. The steering Committee convenes twice a year, and steers the business development of the common cooperation’s scheme within a given budget period. You need to build trust between the institutions. This took time, almost 2 years. In terms of bringing finance to the market, all in line with what the commission is also spending on the grants, for projects that have an economic return. These are complementary, not competitive. Marc volunteered to share a presentation on how it works, the mechanism behind it, and an evaluation report: the commission has delegated the full operational responsibility of bringing the funds to the market, including negotiation, monitoring, disbursement, evaluation …. Needs to be in line with the policy objectives of the research and development programme. The bank is existing since 60 years, and we are in business since 30 years. Samantha Eisner has a question on the mechanism between EIB and the government in disbursing the information. What are the governance tools used? Audits? Regular reporting? To check that the EIB is staying within the boundaries of what you have been entrusted to do? Marc: what can we finance? That is clearly specified. Includes for instance also the research done in institutions, based on thoughts by the commission that wanted to promote innovation. Not only via grants, but also via bigger amounts. To ensure the strategy is aligned there is a framework legal basis. The 2 documents are aligned from a policy point of view. Throughout the programme, EIB is free to invest in projects that are in compliance with the objectives. There is a big trust basis by the EC. The commission has a seat on the EIB Board. Erika asking about administration costs. Some say 5% is the average. Marc cannot give full details, however there are 2 types of revenues: * EIB charges client on all transactions a small margin, covering working costs * The risk revenues on transactions go to the Commission. What the commission gives back is a kind of fee remuneration which consists of 2 big parts: admin compensation of the whole programme, which also includes audit and evaluation. Second component is based on the performance. They have milestones, and more money is received, the higher the milestone that was reached. (1% per annum based on the money invested by the Commission - 7 year period) This is something the bank can accept as a sustainable activity on a long term. Commission can perpetuate the scheme based on return on investments from previous schemes. 6.Confirm next steps and next meeting – Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC * CCWG needs to start considering what else is needed, if anything, to be able to make a determination on which mechanism is preferred. May need another call to determine whether we have enough facts or only opinions? Everyone encouraged to start discussions on the mailing list as timeline is very tight. Action item #4: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list concerning input provided by external experts (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. 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[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…>

1 0

For your review - proposed straw poll survey
by Marika Konings May 2, 2018

May 2, 2018

Dear All, Please find hereby for your review the proposed straw poll survey to evaluate the different mechanisms against the criteria that were identified by the CCWG: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=cMHZyMwKOdxpxzC8NkkypLbODnLsrGKZ…. You are requested to share any feedback and/or proposed edits you may have by Friday 4 May close of business (wherever you are) at the latest. Following that, the survey will go live on Saturday 5 May. Please note that no responses are recorded in the preview mode. Thanks, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

If you haven't already, staff would appreciate it if you could please take a moment to complete this WebEx survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NM82XJS[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-26apr18-en.mp3 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/WQoFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
by Marika Konings April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. As a reminder, there is no call next week. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 26 April 2018 These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from Webex * Please remember to mute your lines when not speaking and state your names before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome / Updates to SOIs/DOIs * Everyone is encouraged to review their SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. 3. Input provided by external experts 3.1. overview of the responses received wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> o summary document with notes of all meetings with experts: see word-file in attachment o summary table in google sheet, including potential gaps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> Highlighted in yellow are the questions that have received no answers. 3.2. CCWG assessment | What topics or issues - if any - require further discussion/consideration before a determination can be made on the preferred mechanism? o Do we need to decide upon a single mechanism or shall we recommend a hierarchy of choices to the public comment period? o Not yet discussed: o Shall we recommend an advisory board (SO/AC/Board/ICANN ORG members) in case of potential conflicts? ( - Nominet and EIB for example - ) o Is there a need to define 'supervision' from ICANN Org further? o One-off fund or long-term fund? · Do we want to define the sunsetting period? * Item 3 and 4 are closely related. First of all, identifying what information, if any, is missing to be able to make a determination about the preferred mechanism, followed by discussing how a determination can be made concerning the preferred mechanism under item 4. * See under 3.1. all the relevant documents which should have been reviewed by the CCWG for this discussion. * Topics identified as part of this agenda item were identified by leadership team, CCWG encourage to indicate if there are other topics that need to be considered. * The objective is to identify what issues, if any, need to be clarified or addressed before a determination can be made with regards to preferred mechanism, but if some of these issues may not need to be addressed at this stage, but they could be deferred to a later stage. * Should an in-house mechanism be chosen, there would need to be some kind of balance, possibly in the form of a Board which would provide external expertise? * Parallel discussion on ICANN Reserve Fund - process still under way, but it includes a question concerning whether auction proceeds could be used to replenish the reserve fund. Not clear how this may impact the CCWG's deliberations. Also issue of appropriateness or not of utilizing a portion of Auction Proceeds. * Consider undertaking a straw poll to get a sense of where the group stands - many issues have been extensively discussed. Loudness and frequency of comments should not be a determining factor. * Has the group fully explored what the liability is for Board / Staff it they would be running a fund distribution mechanism? * Need to be careful that there is understanding of potential conflicts and be neutral when analyzing the potential conflicts for the organization. * Need to be more fact based, cannot rely solely on opinion. * Regardless of which mechanism that is chosen to do the work, there would always be a certain level of independence and following whatever rules are set by the CCWG for disbursement of funds. Conflating different issues here as independence and recommendations would apply to any mechanism chosen. * Not a lot of research has been done yet regarding liability - within the ICANN system, the more the decisions are placed in-house, the whole range of accountability mechanisms would apply and could be activated. If it would be done with a third party, any such requirements would be contractually established. No additional liability compared to other organizations that would be disbursing funds, but due consideration would need to be given to building good structures and processes. Legal will check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability, but it is not obvious at this stage. * Has independence already been defined in the context of the CCWG deliberations? See for example PTI - but in the context of auction proceeds, there should be a majority of independent directors to ensure there is a balance with external oversight. Could easily be achieved with community representation and/or external expertise. * Cira has the same size and type fund as Nominet and has always insourced. Community members do the heavy lifting with some staff support. * CCWG may also need to confirm whether there is still support for previously agreed preliminary agreements or whether opinions have changed based on input from external participants Action item #1: Samantha Eisner to check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability for ICANN Org / Board and report back accordingly, if possible ahead of the launch of the survey. 4. Next steps in making a determination of what is the preferred mechanism: o Criteria? o Survey? o Ranking? * Conduct a straw poll survey to assess current thinking of CCWG on mechanisms * There are preconceived notions that may not be correct that could influence responses - as such, needs to be linked to the criteria that you are looking for. * Staff / leadership team to work on a draft survey that is to be shared with the CCWG for review before launching it. * Possible outcome for Initial Report could be a recommendation for a single model or ranking of models - will depend on outcome of the survey. * Need to be careful in drafting the survey that independence is only applicable to one mechanism versus others. Action item #2: Staff to work with co-chairs to develop proposed straw poll survey which is to be shared with the CCWG for review and input prior to launch. Action item #3: Following circulation of straw poll survey, CCWG to review and provide input as soon as possible. 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 3 May 2018 at 14.00 UTC * No meeting next week to allow for prep time for survey and discussions on the mailing list. Next meeting will be scheduled for 10 May at 14.00 UTC. Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-12apr18-en.mp3 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/ioXpB Staff would appreciate it if you could please take a moment to complete this WebEx survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NM82XJS Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

2 1

proposed agenda CCWG Auction Proceeds on Thu, 26 April 2018 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC. You are encouraged to review the linked documents ahead of the meeting and share any comments and / or proposed edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Joke Braeken Proposed agenda 1. Roll Call 1. Welcome / Updates to SOIs/DOIs 1. Input provided by external experts 3.1. overview of the responses received * wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B * summary document with notes of all meetings with experts: see word-file in attachment * summary table in google sheet, including potential gaps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7… Highlighted in yellow are the questions that have received no answers. 3.2. CCWG assessment | What topics or issues - if any - require further discussion/consideration before a determination can be made on the preferred mechanism? * Do we need to decide upon a single mechanism or shall we recommend a hierarchy of choices to the public comment period? * Not yet discussed: o Shall we recommend an advisory board (SO/AC/Board/ICANN ORG members) in case of potential conflicts? ( - Nominet and EIB for example - ) o Is there a need to define 'supervision' from ICANN Org further? o One-off fund or long-term fund? · Do we want to define the sunsetting period? 1. Next steps in making a determination of what is the preferred mechanism: * Criteria? * Survey? * Ranking? 1. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 3 May 2018 at 14.00 UTC 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