- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Marika Konings April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC 1. Start of meeting – roll call 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached) 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template) 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 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-…>.

6 7

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by elliot noss April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

also agree about the foundation! > On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:11 AM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > >> I strongly agree with Seun. PLEASE let us not forget that 5%, is $7,000,000! And 10% is $14,000,000!! > > I agree about the 5% vs 10%, but I see no benefit to setting up a separate foundatation. It would have another level of administrative overhead, yet could not do anything that ICANN couldn't do since they'd both be the same kind of US non-profits. > > R's, > John > > PS: If anyone was about to suggest that a foundation might be in some other country, don't go there. > >> >> EN >> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Well it's fine to communicate that the cost might be more than 5% but clearly indicating that to be 10% would have to be back with facts. I will be fine with rewording that section to indicate that the cost may indeed exceed 5% and leave it at that. >>> >>> As to the trust, yes you are right I read that part wrongly (was a quick read). Overall I think we should consider the cost implications of maintaining a foundation and also whether the foundation will continue to access funds beyond the auction proceeds would be something to consider. Ultimately I agree that a foundation may be one of the ways to get ICANN to legitimately spend the huge money(profit) she is making (as a not-for-profit "tax exempt" organisation). >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2017 21:07, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: >>> At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Marika, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: >>>> >>>> 1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: >>>> "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments." >>> >>> I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better. >>> >>> >>>> 2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. >>> >>> I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body. >>> >>> However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes" >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Start of meeting – roll call >>>> >>>> 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs >>>> >>>> 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) >>>> >>>> 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan attached) >>>> >>>> 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) >>>> >>>> 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see attached template) >>>> >>>> 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika Konings >>>> >>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed 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-…>. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds> >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> Content-Disposition: inline >>>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>>> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== >>>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >>>> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>_______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> >> > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Alan Greenberg April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

At 25/04/2017 02:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Marika, > >Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative >apology for the upcoming call (due to personal >family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: > >1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll >to check how many members indicated that 10% >overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the >use of the word several might be misleading. I >will actually suggest to remove the following text: >"Several CCWG members/participants did point >out, however, that an overhead around 10% is >fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG >members/participants in different funding and project related environments." I support keeping the statement. It sends an important message that 5% may not be sufficient and we should not even imply that we are taking this as an absolute target until we understand the situation better. >2. On question 7, why are we recommending a >trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be >helpful to have other entities handle the "end >point" applications while ICANN just administer >the funds at high level so long as those >entities meets the requirements to be set by the >ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a >trust in itself could result to more overhead >cost, unless there is a reason to believe this >kind of funds will be available on a continuous >basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. I don't see any reference to a trust. There is a reference to whether we will trust and external body. However, the charter question is an either/or. The first bullet point suggest the answer may be "Yes" Alan >Regards > >On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >Please find below the proposed agenda for the >next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has >been scheduled for Thursday 27 April at 14.00 >UTC. Note that the leadership team has reviewed >the comments received on the draft response the >Board, also factoring in the discussion during >the last meeting, and would like to propose the >attached draft as the response to be sent to the >ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or >edits, please share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Marika > > > >Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds >CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC > > > >1. Start of meeting roll call > >2. Welcome & updates to DOIs > >3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) > >4. Review of updates approach for dealing >with charter questions and associated work plan >(see updated approach and updated work plan attached) > >5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) > >6. Initial run through of charter question >7, if time allows (see attached template) > >7. Confirm next meeting Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC > > > >Marika Konings > >Vice President, Policy Development Support >GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > >Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our ><http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>interactive >courses and visiting the ><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>GNSO >Newcomer pages. > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list ><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CVHbbi8SghJc/0+nXklVDc08BlBjemY7X+Y8QLMLmabAVei5lZD4Bv9BHqANp/65/TJHAbB9M/pswu37VpQNdqDfJ+VitCNt0yVaks+vxYoOdVg+2jyU3qmOsRorIecSpwN5H8yxmWF/zt+VgDPsdA== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

3 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda and documents - CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Seun Ojedeji April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

Hello Marika, Thanks for this, I like to note a tentative apology for the upcoming call (due to personal family needs). However, I have just a 2 quick comments: 1. On the letter, I don't think there was a poll to check how many members indicated that 10% overhead would be appropriate. Hence I feel the use of the word several might be misleading. I will actually suggest to remove the following text: "Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an overhead around 10% is fairly standard based on the experience of CCWG members/participants in different funding and project related environments." 2. On question 7, why are we recommending a trust for this?, sure I agree that it will be helpful to have other entities handle the "end point" applications while ICANN just administer the funds at high level so long as those entities meets the requirements to be set by the ccwg. I think recommending to ICANN to setup a trust in itself could result to more overhead cost, unless there is a reason to believe this kind of funds will be available on a continuous basis in that case a "foundation" may be a good thing to consider. Regards On Apr 25, 2017 18:06, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds > meeting which has been scheduled for *Thursday 27 April at 14.00 UTC*. > Note that the leadership team has reviewed the comments received on the > draft response the Board, also factoring in the discussion during the last > meeting, and would like to propose the attached draft as the response to be > sent to the ICANN Board. If you have any comments and/or edits, please > share this ahead of the meeting with the mailing list. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Proposed agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 27 > April at 14.00 UTC* > > > > 1. Start of meeting – roll call > > 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs > > 3. Response to ICANN Board letter (see updated draft attached) > > 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions > and associated work plan (see updated approach and updated work plan > attached) > > 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 (see attached template) > > 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows (see > attached template) > > 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 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 <marika.konings(a)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-…>. * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >

2 1

For your review - updated response to the ICANN Board
by Marika Konings April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Dear All, Following our meeting last week, please find attached for your review the updated response to the ICANN Board which aims to address the comments raised during the call. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have with the list by Wednesday 26 April at the latest. 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-…>.

8 10

For your review - charter question templates and updated approach
by Marika Konings April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Dear All, As a reminder, you are encouraged to share your feedback on the templates that have been developed to facilitate the CCWG’s initial run through of charter questions (see attached), as well as continue providing your thoughts on the charter questions by adding to the google doc which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QN7zarCr2c-2BVv3pfa6Z5O10pDcgHSIQ5Q3CBd…. You will find attached a slightly modified version of the approach for dealing with the charter questions which factors in that certain questions may need to be addressed before work can start on (now) phase 3. 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-…>.

2 1

DOI Review - VANDA SCARTEZINI
by Vanda Scartezini April 16, 2017

April 16, 2017

Dear all Attached, for your consideration, my revised DOI related basically to question 6, but also adjusted related to my membership representing ALAC that I have started aa an independent individual. Kind regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC chat for CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 13 April 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-13apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7bq55arg6l/ 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 page: https://community.icann.org/x/BsfRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 13 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group call on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Olga Cavalli:hello good morning here Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome Olga! Marc Gauw:Goodafternoon from a cold and windy Amsterdam Julf Helsingius:Good afternoon from, yes, a windy and gray Amsterdam :) Marc Gauw::-) Manal Ismail:Hello everyone from sunny Cairo :) !! Becky Burr:hello Manal Becky Burr:1 Becky Burr:it is cloudy in DC Ching Chiao:Hello everyone Olga Cavalli:it is a holiday here :) Erika Mann:Hi, hi everryone! Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone! Daniel Dardailler:Bonjour à tous from sunny French Riviera Erika Mann:Shall we get started? Everyone ready? Maureen Hilyard:Yes Asha Hemrajani:Hello all Manal Ismail:hi Becky :) !! Asha Hemrajani:Hi Michelle, I have sent you a message Michelle DeSmyter:I will send her a private chat Marika Konings 2:She just noted that AC shut down on her and is logging back in Erika Mann:I'm back ... Adobe shut down Julf Helsingius:I think someone has their mic on, there is a bit of a ringing echo Marika Konings 2:Please note that the wiki page has now been updated per our discussion on the previous meeting: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Daniel Dardailler:I'm going to call in via phone Ching Chiao:Adobe also asked me to download something ... Ching Chiao:I think last time we said we want to have a simple letter reply and get it out ASAP John Levine:sorry to be late Jonathan Robinson:@Erika. Agree with you appraoch to deal wiht this carefully. The board has asserted a position. The Group / Community needs to accept the boards position and/or push back accordingly. Jonathan Robinson:@Erika. Your audio is good. The volume may be a little loud but it's clear to me. Erika Mann:Thank you Jonathan, Marika Konings 2:Alan, you are referring to the CCWG Accountability, correct? Asha Hemrajani:@Marika yes that is my understanding too. Marika Konings 2:Alan, if you have some suggested wording, please feel free to suggest. Alberto Soto:Hello! Sorry for being late! Alan Greenberg:@Marika, yes, and Bernie can provide the details if needed. Asha Hemrajani:@Alan agree and that's why it would be good for the CCWG to put together the budget at the appropriate time (after we understand better what it is that is needed) Erika Mann:Hello Alberto! Stephanie Perrin:My apologies for being late. Erika Mann:Stephanie, we're just reviewing the Board letter. Glad you can join today! Marika Konings 2:as far as I understand that relates to CCWG-Accountability meetings which take part outside of the normal framework of meetings. hadia elminiawi:apologies for being late, I joined 10 minutes ago Becky Burr:the costs are based on the needs of the CCWG Vanda Scartezini:@alan, good question Marika Konings 2:the "normal" overhead is part of this effort, but anything that goes beyond that will need to planned for separately. Marika Konings 2:and as Asha says, that would need to be identified based on need. Alan Greenberg:We can figure out needs at the appropriate time. My question is whether when we do that budget will ONLY be the new marginal costs, or if it will include costs already budgeted by ICANN. Jonathan Robinson:@All. In terms of checking costs, sugest checking language of charter as starting point and then take the forecasting approach suggested by Asha, if required. Alberto Soto:Sorry, I have serious problems with my internet connection. I have a few cuts. Is my ISP Ching Chiao:"#action 2: staff to consult with Xavier Calve. Proposal then to be discussed in this " do we plan to put this in the letter ? Erika Mann:Alberto, shall someone call you? Alan Greenberg:Our first cut is that we currently are not aware of any need for funds. My only issues was WHAT line items we need to include when and if we have a need for funds Wale Bakare:Hi all. Apologies for joining late Marika Konings 2:Thanks, Alan, I think I understand your point know. My understanding is that only additional costs beyond support already provided. but happy to stand corrected. Marika Konings 2:so we can clarify that in the letter. Asha Hemrajani:@alan the first cut may include for instance, if the CCWG decides, an expert on fund disbursement Alan Greenberg:@Marika, yes, you've go it. Alan Greenberg:@Erika, Correct. Until we understand what we need to do, we cannot commit to that hard figure. Marc Gauw:The overhhead is also linked to legal restrictions for 501-look-a-likes Olga Cavalli:ok Jonathan Robinson:@Erika. Agreeed. It seems like a reasonable target but it's not yet clear how it will fit in with CWG "business model" Marc Gauw:In holland e.g. 10 % Julf Helsingius:agree Vanda Scartezini:5% is a good mark Manal Ismail:+1 Erika .. agree .. Maureen Hilyard:@Erika 5% is a reasonable ask Marika Konings 2:Asha, can you here Becky speak? Asha Hemrajani:YEs Erika Mann:Yes, Marika judith hellerstein:Sorry about being late. I joined about 10 minutes ago and was reading the chat Jonathan Robinson:So ... following on from Becky, the wide net is about particpation in the CCWG. Not necessarily applicants for funding. That "net" will come later. Olga Cavalli:becky sounded low Asha Hemrajani:I want to echo Becky's points here - which is reflective of the Board's concerns - that a) broad participation is needed and b) figure out the goals & objectives of the funds Becky Burr:correct Jonathan Asha Hemrajani:+1 Jonathan Becky Burr:yes, that's correct Alan Asha Hemrajani:@Alan yes - at this point of time Asha Hemrajani:@erika yes exactly Jonathan Robinson:@Erika. I also recall Steve being clear that he wanted as broad as possible particpation in CCWG including from outside "normal" ICANN circles. Becky Burr:Yes, in order to develop a shared understanding of what we want to accomplish with the funds Becky Burr:it is useful to have broad participation in this group. e.g., ISOC, NRO, SSAC, etc Maureen Hilyard:@Erka I think inclusiveness of all other parties is important Ching Chiao:I think the letter could add that "CCWG plans to reach out to the wilder internet community for our work" judith hellerstein:+maureen Marc Gauw:This bullit is perfectly phrased. However, if nevertheless the Board decides that there still is a conflict of interest at the CCWG partipants that have 'YES" or 'MAYBE" in their DOI, they should be forgiven that they joined the CCWG for about 3 months, and therefor they should still keep the same rights on the auction funds as anybody else after they are being forced by the Board to leave the CCWG ! Ching Chiao:Steve's original text " Sixth, to avoid conflicts of interest, there should be clear separation of those deciding general direction, those choosing specific projects and those receiving the funds." Ching Chiao:clear separation Becky Burr:for now, transparency is key Manal Ismail:+1 for transparency .. Julf Helsingius:OK with the current text Maureen Hilyard:agree with the text Alan Greenberg:Support Erika. Cannot include all idea without possibility of some participants later applying. Olga Cavalli:agree with trasparency Asha Hemrajani:We are not talking about complete exclusion. What we are concerned about is clear transparency about where individual members/observers are coming from. Erika Mann:Vanda, we can't hear you Olga Cavalli:we can hear typing marques:agree with transparency hadia elminiawi:+1 Becky with regard to transparency Marc Gauw:Yes Maureen Hilyard:yes judith hellerstein:+1 Asha Julf Helsingius:sure! Manal Ismail:Yes .. judith hellerstein:yes hadia elminiawi:sure Vanda Scartezini:guess alla gree with transparency John Levine:sorry, have to leave for another call Erika Mann:John - thank you for having joined our common call! Wale Bakare:I agree with transparency as well Vanda Scartezini: yes. Maureen Hilyard:@Erika it sets out the items relevant to each question Maureen Hilyard:easy to check through Erika Mann:Indeed, Maureen! Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Maureen judith hellerstein:yes easy to use Olga Cavalli:+1Maureen Wale Bakare:Please, permit me to step out Wale Bakare:Thank you all, bye Marika Konings 2:Maybe charter question 2 could be expanded to that end? It currently reads: 2. As part of this framework, what will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used inline with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANN serves? Thisshould include recommendations on how to assess whether the proposed use is aligned with ICANN's Mission.Furthermore consideration is expected to be given to what safeguards, if any, need to be in place. Becky Burr:I think Charter Question 2 is close to asking about goals and objectivew judith hellerstein:yes Maureen Hilyard:yes Asha Hemrajani:Yes Marika - it would need to be specifically expanded. hadia elminiawi:+1 Asha Becky Burr:Yes, goals and objectives are just a more positive way of getting at the Charter #2 questions judith hellerstein:+1 Sam Eisner. I think this is might be good idea Marika Konings 2:You are welcome :-) Asha Hemrajani:Thank you Marika Stephanie Perrin:I just want to thank Marika and staff for walking us through all these rather iterative steps, it is very helpful as the amount of homework we need to digest as we contemplate goals and paramters is signiificant. Marc Gauw:+1 Maureen Hilyard:+1 Stephanie these templatse are real helpful Vanda Scartezini:happy easter and Happy pesach to all judith hellerstein:Thanks Vanda marques:Happy Easter to all !! Olga Cavalli:happy easter! judith hellerstein:Yes Marika, not sure i did the doodle, but i will be there Ching Chiao:thanks Marika for the update Vanda Scartezini:tks Marika Alice Munyua:Happy Easter everyone Ching Chiao:Happy Holidays Marika Konings 2:Will do - the beach is waiting :-) Marc Gauw:Happy Eastern ! Julf Helsingius:Happy Easter! Asha Hemrajani:Thank you Erika Joke Braeken:thank you all. Bye Manal Ismail:Happy Easter everyone .. Thanks Erika, Marika and everyone .. Bye .. Jonathan Robinson:Thank-you Erika judith hellerstein:bye Jacob Odame-Baiden:Happy Easter bverd (RSSAC):Happy Easter all. Erika Mann:Thank you all! Alice Munyua:thank you...bye Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Erika Jacob Odame-Baiden:Thank you Erika

1 0

Notes: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group call, 13 April @14UTC
by Joke Braeken April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Note that the next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. As per action item #6: CCWG Charter Question 1 - Template - 6 April 2017<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64079622/CCWG%20Charter%20…> CCWG Charter Question 3 - Template - 11 April 2017<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64079622/CCWG%20Charter%20…> CCWG input on charter questions: see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QN7zarCr2c2BVv3pfa6Z5O10pDcgHSIQ5Q3CBdX…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QN7zarCr2c2BVv3pfa6Z5O10pDcgHSIQ5Q3CBdX…> Best regards, Joke Braeken Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG - 13 April 2017 1. Roll Call Please state your name for transcript purposes. 2. Welcome - DOI updates Welcome by co-chair Ching Chiao. Aplogies noted in the AdobeConnect room. Please notify any updates to your DOI to staff. We keep track of the DOI via the Group's wiki space. The wiki page has now been updated per our discussion on the previous meeting: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Co-chair Erika Mann takes over. Separate column added for the comments received for Q6. The many comments are appreciated. The chair hopes the additional clarification sent after the previous call was helpful. 3. Review CCWG Response to ICANN Board Timetable has not been set yet. The letter needs to be sent out asap. This letter is an acknowledgement of the Board's input. The comments will factor in on the deliberations on the charter questions. --> bullet point 1 --> bullet point 2 CCWG's budget: staff travel, should be mentioned explicitly that this is not covered by the CCWG budget. The CCWG-AP staff support is indeed provided. CCWG principles also apply here. #action 1: budget - to be rephrased and clarified in the draft letter by staff. Which line items: only the one for "staff travel"? To be clarified, before it will be addressed in the letter back to the Board. Which areas do we need support on? What areas of support is needed, and draft a budget accordingly. In terms of checking costs, sugest checking language of charter as starting point and then take the forecasting approach suggested by Asha, if required. #action 2: staff to consult with Xavier Calvez on the budget. Proposal then to be discussed in this group. First step is to start with the budget for the first round. If needed, come up with second set of figures. --> bullet point 3 Keep the 5%: there is a common understanding on this. --> bullet point 4 "wide net" The most import issue is for the group is to understand what the purpose for spending this money is. What is that we want to do with this funding? That is the first question to be answered. Secondly, how far do you cast the net, with respect to applicants? Once the first question has been answered, some follow-up questions need to be answered. The Board's concerns: a) broad participation is needed and b) figure out the goals & objectives of the funds Wide net = broader audience than usual. Steve Crocker was being clear that he wanted as broad as possible participation in CCWG, including from outside "normal" ICANN circles. #action 3: staff to review the current language, and if needed clarify along the following lines. To be clarified: - defining of the process - who can access the funds? --> bullet point 5 Concern of the board: be mindful of the potential conflicts of interest. The DOI is available, and needs to be kept updated. What do we want to accomplish with this fund? Once this question has been answered, it will be easier to understand which potential conflicts are there, and how to address them. What we are concerned about is clear transparency about where individual members/observers are coming from. #action 4: staff will make updates to the letter as suggested. The group will be given one week time to review the revised version and comment. The updated version will then be put again on the agenda for the next call, in 2 weeks time. 4. Recap proposed approach and next steps work plan Approach proposed for dealing with the charter questions. This will help to shape the work plan. We start an initial run-through of the charter questions. e.g. Are there any gating questions? do we have an understanding of what is being asked here? Other questions that are linked? The assumption is that a limited amount of options is available. This will feed into the work plan. Once we look into the 1st charter question, we have a better prediction of how the overall work plan will look, and how much time we need. 5. charter question 1 Staff developed a template to help guide the conversation: - summary of the initial responses - order in which the questions should be dealt with - sub-questions or clarifications needed? - (external) expertise needed? A conversation on this would be helpful, in order to be able to move to the next chartering question. Next step: this needs to be done for all of the chartering questions. The question was raised on how do we reach consensus? When do we move to the next step? The importance of the DOI is critical, just like the goals and objectives for these funds. Once the goals and objectives are clear, it will help us in clarifying the mechanisms. This is something for the group to keep in mind, in terms of the order of the chartering questions. The questions were grouped: legal-related, and scope-related. (E.g. Q2 - limitations of fund allocations. Extension for this: what is the overall objective?) Shall we proceed first with the legal questions? Is there something that we need to dive into, before we move on to the next step? Suggested is to continue with question number 3 after this one. We need to have an understanding of what the gating questions will be, but at the same time do not need to worry about the order at this point in time. Charter question number 2 is goals-objective related. #action 5: The 2 templates will be re-sent by staff to the group, including the link to the google doc used as a basis for this document. The group is invited to continue updating the google doc. 6. charter question 3 clear. to be reviewed in 2 weeks time. a. planning ICANN59 The need for a face-to-face meeting. Duration : preferably 2h. Doodle poll was sent out, asking whether people : - participate in person - participate remotely - do not participate Request to meet still needs to be presented to the GNSO Council. The policy forum is a 4-day meeting, focussed on SO/AC policy development. If the meeting will happen, it will be a 90-min meeting, based on the availability in the block schedule. b. confirm next meeting Thu 27 April 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

Proposed Agenda and materials - CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting Thursday 13 April at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 13 April at 14.00 UTC. In relation to item 3, you are encouraged to share any comments and/or edits you may have with the list ahead of the meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 13 April at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll call 2. Welcome – DOI Updates 3. Review of CCWG Response to the ICANN Board (see proposed response attached) 4. Recap of proposed approach and next steps on the work plan (see attached overview) a. Commence initial run through of charter question 1 (see attached template) b. Initial run through of charter question 3, if time allows (see attached template) 5. Planning for ICANN59 6. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 27 April 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