- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Zoom Drop in Training
by Andrea Glandon May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Dear all, On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. Attached you will also find a ics attachment for your calendar. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Zoom Drop In Training
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Andrea Glandon

1 0

Recordings, attendance & chat / CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon May 9, 2019

May 9, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance & AC chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-08may19-e… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/woTR5Z8vzhWByk0RiK_1pDm1PLasydhWkukIr… 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/g4KGBg Thank you! Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Additional comments/discussion today
by Erika Mann May 9, 2019

May 9, 2019

Hi All - the following link adds some unusual flavor to our discussion today about the question whether we shall introduce an appeal process. Alan, said no and added that ICANN has the tendency to over complicate things. Well, here’s the link: https://www.messynessychic.com/2019/05/07/the-peculiar-art-of-over-complica… Enjoy! Erika Sent from my iPhone

2 1

Notes & Action items | CCWG AP | 8 May 2019 | 14 UTC
by Joke Braeken May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 8 May 2019 (14:00 UTC) Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 1. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates No updates received 1. Update on the status of outstanding action items Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) 1. Follow-up action items by leadership team 1. There was discussion in the leadership team last week regarding outstanding items, the status will be reviewed on this call. 2. Action items and agreements are captured here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138829/new%20gTLD%20AP%… 3. CCWG members should review that document and provide input. The document continues to be updated. Staff will take on some of these action items to update the report. 4. Allows the community to see what action the group has taken in response to public comments. 1. FAQs https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/FAQs One document with input from the Board, and one with input from ICANN org on fiduciary requirements. Action item #1: CCWG to review the information provided, and identify follow-up clarifying questions, if any. Background: CCWG had some questions with a legal nature, and questions related to the Board’s role, fiduciary and legal obligations. Both ICANN org and Board provided answers at regular intervals. It is very helpful for CCWG members to review these 2 documents, with all input received to date. 1. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion Comments related to what belongs in ICANN’s operational budget, and what was funded on a more exceptional basis, but might still qualify for auction proceeds allocation. Discussion by CCWG on this topic. To be included in the final version of the report. Proposed language for inclusion by the small team (recent addition from mailing list): Maureen, as a member of the small drafting team, agrees with the addition by Vanda. Those involved in developing this language are: Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen. Marilyn: “and constraints otherwise imposed”. CCWG might understand the implications, but a clarifying footnote might be helpful. E.g. legal requirements. “Proposed guidance to evaluators: Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular ICANN operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements. Consistency with the ICANN mission is a necessary but not sufficient condition for funding. Evaluators should specifically consider the scope and impact of the proposed project in light of the constraints otherwise imposed. Proposed preamble to annex with examples: Consistency with the ICANN mission is a necessary but not sufficient condition for funding. Evaluators should specifically consider the scope and impact of the proposed project in light of the overall purpose of the auction proceeds and constraints otherwise imposed. (e.g. legal and fiduciary requirements) Examples provided are specifically intended to be illustrative, not definitive. Openness to innovation and the future of the Internet may be part of the evaluation considerations. “ Sam: administrative checks? Group that will be evaluating the applications. Is there flexibility in the language? Part of the process as a whole? Is this something the drafters wanted to reserve to the independent group? Jonathan: offering to edit, based on Marilyn’s input. Sam’s input added another dimension to this. Can we have a another drafting group session, with Sam attending as well? Xavier: ICANN org will need to provide feedback at some point. Factually: is there already something done in the ICANN operating plan, related to that same activity? Regardless of what the evaluators are doing. Factual feedback by ICANN org, not an opinion, for the evaluators to take into account. Judith: to clarify. When they ask ICANN org whether a project is funded or not, have an approach based on broader categories. E.g. Is outreach funded? Action item #2: Comment #4 (charter question #2). Small group that worked on the original proposal- together with Sam/Xavier - to review the proposed language, based on today’s discussions, and to send the revised version to the CCWG mailing list. 1. Continue review of comments: see templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… Different agreements and action items are listed at the bottom of this page. There are some areas the CCWG needs to provide input, when we come to the next version of the report. CCWG is asked to review the document and provide input. 1. Charter question #11 input * Q11 | #3 Discussion: Topic was raised frequently. Community involvement in the evaluation: how can this be ensured in the future? Chair believes community involvement is important in the evaluation process. How shall this be done? Leadership team is working on proposed language with Allan. Aim is to share a proposal with the CCWG by the next meeting. Note action item coming out of review of other comments that will focus on the development of a proposal(s) concerning the role of the community. This work may also address this comment. May need to have a general comment about the importance of the involvement of community, but the review framework could change depending on the mechanism chosen. As such, this may need to be further detailed in the implementation phase? Await outcome of small team work on proposal concerning role of community. CCWG Agreement: Clarify in the implementation guidance that depending on the mechanism chosen, the review framework might be different but there is a need to ensure that whatever mechanism is chosen, there are strong procedures in place for monitoring and evaluation. * Q11 | #7 Discussion: A review may identify certain issues that need to be addressed. May need to distinguish between an assessment after the first round of submissions (e.g. did applications received meet the criteria – if not, mild adjustment to communication might be needed) and after 3-4 years (have projects funded contributed to ICANN’s mission and achieved what was set out at the start) which could result in more substantial adjustments. Latter would require a proper review process – costs of which should be borne by the mechanism. Also need to factor in community involvement in review process. Ensure that both incremental changes as well as substantial changes are addressed. Consider looking into best practices used in other environments and see if these could be adapted for our purposes? Also aligned with previous action item re. role of community. Make sure to scope work for CCWG and for implementation phase. CCWG agreement: Action item #3: Leadership team to propose hierarchy for how to discuss and approach the different related items (e.g. evaluation process, role of the community, review, role of the evaluators, correction mechanism). 1. Sections 1-4 input Covered the executive summary, description next steps, methodology used, what led to the original recommendations. * Section 1-4 | comment #2 Discussion: Second comment period needed, if there are substantial changes. Charter: required comments are those on the initial report. However, if there are substantial changes to the recommendations, community should be able to provide input. Various approaches: only highlight the fundamental changes, or send out a completely new version of the report? May not be possible to make that determination, but CCWG will see more clearly when the draft final report is out, whether there are indeed substantial changes. CCWG should start thinking about this. This will however add additional time to the overall timeline. Could consider asking input on those questions that have changed. Chair suggests CCWG members to verify with their respective communities, what their preferred approach is: is a second public comment period desirable? Board provided input on this as well. What would the chartering organisations recommend in terms of minimum duration? Standard public comment period is 40 days. Action item #4: Staff to verify what the requirements are for a potential next public comment period CCWG to check with their respective groups whether a second public comment period is desirable, and what the minimum duration should be * Section 1-4 | comment #4 Discussion: Consider building this into the hierarchy for the evaluation process. Application review process should be built into that. Appeals process for project applicants should go to the relevant mechanism. Need to avoid tying ICANN up in an endless loop of appeals. How does this interplay with the bylaws? We might need to incorporate statement that individual appeals cannot be directed to ICANN Board, but still ensure that responsibility of ICANN Board is maintained for overall oversight. Are we created a typical ICANN, convoluted, process? We should make this simple. Are there other environments where appeals can be launched this way? Does the appeals mechanism apply to mechanism 1,2,3? CCWG Agreement : Once hierarchy list has been developed, CCWG to come back to this comment and determine how this is to be addressed. At that point, CCWG to consider whether or not there should be an appeals process for individual project applicants. (many expressed support for not having an appeals process) If there is a recommendation for an appeals process, guidance would need to be provided for the implementation phase. Also need to address the Board comment regarding applicability or not of ICANN redress mechanisms. Action item #5: CCWG to check with legal whether there are requirements in place, that would prevent having an appeals mechanism. (maybe dependent on the mechanism chosen) initial response: there is no legal requirement to have an appeals process, but there might be an accountability need to have one. 1. Annex C input Covered guidance for proposal review, and selection. Additional language was proposed that needs to be added here. * Annex C | comment #1 Discussion: Discussed when we decided to provide examples. Concern that evaluators might be too restrictive in providing support for projects that fall within the mission, but have a broader nature. List of examples were provided as guidance for evaluators, to be able to judge projects, whether they are within ICANN’s mission or not. Concern noted that it could create the impression that copy/pasting example would automatically pass. Concern by the Board that there might be inconsistencies with the examples. May need to add further clarifying language? Could this create legal risk, to include this list? Should it be excluded? Is there a different way in providing sufficient guidance for evaluators? Is the Board overly cautious? Examples to be turned into background briefing, add additional caveating language (illustrative, not a commitment to award any particular application, etc) Action item #6: Leadership team to send a question to the Board liaisons based on today’s discussion and the comment regarding asking for clarification on the input. 1. Annex D input 1. General comments 1. Proposals for funding allocation input 1. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 22 May at 14.00 UTC. Marrakech: draft. extensive block, 3h, on Wednesday morning. Subject to changes. Action item #7: Staff to send out poll regarding CCWG attendance at ICANN65, once the slot for the face-to-face meeting is confirmed. To ensure sufficient participation to proceed. 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

agenda: New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 14.00 UTC
by Joke Braeken May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday, 8 May 2019 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 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates 1. Update on status of outstanding action items: Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) * Follow-up action items by leadership team * FAQs * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion 1. Continue review of comments: see templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… * Charter question #11 input * Sections 1-4 input * Annex C input * Annex D input * General comments * Proposals for funding allocation input 1. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 22 May at 14.00 UTC. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

5 7

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] agenda: New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

Dear All, In relation to agenda item 3c, note that the small team is putting forward the following additions for inclusion in the Final Report: Proposed guidance to evaluators: Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular ICANN operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements. Consistency with the ICANN mission is a necessary but not sufficient condition for funding. Evaluators should specifically consider the scope and impact of the proposed project in light of the constraints otherwise imposed. Proposed preamble to annex with examples: Consistency with the ICANN mission is a necessary but not sufficient condition for funding. Evaluators should specifically consider the scope and impact of the proposed project in light of the overall purpose of the auction proceeds and constraints otherwise imposed. Examples provided are specifically intended to be illustrative, not definitive. If you have any comments on these proposed additions, please share them with the mailing list or during tomorrow’s meeting. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 07:24 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] agenda: New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting | Wednesday, 8 May 2019 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 Wednesday, 8 May 2019 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 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates 1. Update on status of outstanding action items: Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) * Follow-up action items by leadership team * FAQs * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion 1. Continue review of comments: see templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… * Charter question #11 input * Sections 1-4 input * Annex C input * Annex D input * General comments * Proposals for funding allocation input 1. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 22 May at 14.00 UTC. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [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…>

3 3

For your review - FAQs
by Marika Konings May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

Dear All, Please note that the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for both legal & fiduciary requirements as well as the Board input provided to date, have been posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/74iGBg. Your action item is to review these FAQs and identify whether there are any clarifying or additional questions that should be raised with either ICANN Org or the Board liaisons to help inform the CCWG’s deliberations. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance & AC chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-new-gtlds-auction-proceeds-24apr19-e… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/0d6ki81pICRhBIu-tk121dtyRLKFVyZs4beQZ… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/IwB1Bg Thank you! Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 (14:00 UTC) Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 1. Roll Call Attendance will be taken from AC Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed a. Short introduction to Zoom Provided by Andrea Glandon 3. Update on the status of outstanding action items: * FAQs Staff is working on 2 stand-alone documents: one captures the input received to date from the ICANN Board. Second one relates to the legal and fiduciary requirements. Will be shared with the CCWG shortly. * Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * small team action item coming out of Kobe was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements” which are also referenced in the Board input. * Small team met in the meanwhile, and the proposed language will be circulated with the rest of the group shortly. * Jonathan: action item coming out of Kobe, to look at those 2 topics. Recording available, meeting lasted 30 min. Additional wording was added. Jonathan posted the current draft of the additional text in the chat, upon request of the chair. * Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) 4. Continue review of comments: See templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+… 1. Charter question #8 input Q8 | comment #2 * No recommendation for a precise percentage. Overhead will vary as well, depending on the size of the project * Original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead. Chair prefers this. No objections raised by the CCWG * Xavier: Group may want to consider explaining why in the response of addressing the comment, the group thinks not specifying the ceiling is a good approach. While a ceiling is not offered, the group has expressed the recommendation of minimising costs to the extent possible. The mechanisms could lead to different level of costs. Action item #1: Q8 | comment #2 · Stick to the original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead. · Stress that the group recommends to minimise costs, to the extent possible. 1. Charter question #9 input Q9 | comment #1 To be included in the original recommendation, instead of including it in the guidelines. What does the group think? Action item #2: Q9 | Comment #1 · Staff to send the text of the original recommendation to the group. · Leadership team will verify how to address the Board recommendations Follow-up by staff on action item #2: See page 24 and 25 of the initial report. (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93128721/new%20gTLD%20Auct… ) Q9 | comment #2 * Elliot: The comment echoes “motherhood comments”. Rather than addressing them individually, could we have a blanket statement about oversight. All those comments are similar. * Erika: Do we want to make a single recommendation regarding good governance? Agrees with Elliot’s suggestion. Options: recommendation, or in the guidelines? Action item #3: Q9 | Comment #2 A small drafting team (consisting of Erika and Elliot) will review the original recommendations and guidelines, and all comments that related to good governance principles received during the public comment period. Explore the option to draft one single text for the governance recommendations. Proposal to be presented to the group. Q9 | comment #3 * Understanding that the auction proceeds would be separated from the original audit ICANN is doing. Funds would need to be audited once in a year. Separate audit for each individual project. * Xavier: Regulatory requirements pertaining to status of icann as a non-profit organisation. Audit can also mean “re-verifying something”. Annual independent requirement in the US: that audit is not applying to the auction proceeds. Those audits apply to a legal entity, and to all actions by that legal entity. Auction proceeds are not subject to a separate independent audit, but they are audited as part of the annual independent audit by the independent auditors of ICANN, and PTI. * Separate from the independent annual audit: disbursement. * Erika: independent auditors will continue to audit the auction proceeds as part of the audit they do for ICANN. Once we have decided about the mechanism (part of icann, separate entity, foundation ….) we would need to describe a separate audit process. Further discussion to be postponed until a mechanism has been selected? * Maarten: Board is happy to assist. * Erika asked Xavier for input about the ideal scenario Action item #4: Q9 | comment #3 Postpone the discussion for now. To be addressed once a mechanism has been selected Q9 | comment #4 Action item #5: Q9 | comment #4 To be addressed by the small drafting team: explore the option to bring all governance-related good practices into 1 single recommendation. (see action item #3) 1. Charter question #10 input Q10 | comment #1 * Sam is not on today’s call. Erika asks whether we should postpone this, until Sam is available? * Xavier suggests to continue the conversation, and to bring possible questions to Sam’s attention after this meeting. Vanda prefers to have legal input * Carolina: it would be useful to have context about what the current situation is for these bodies. Will help to give a sense to the group, on allocating funds to the SO/ACs or not. * Erika: do not re-discuss things that were previously discussed. Topic needs to be approached carefully. What is legally possible? What is within the icann bylaws? * Maarten: There has been Board advice concerning this topic. * Correspondence records, see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Correspondence * Erika: Topic is phrased in a broader way Action item #6: Q10 | Comment #1 With regard to points raised in public comments that go beyond what was covered in existing advice from ICANN legal and board · Postpone the discussion until further legal input is available. · Board input to be reviewed by the leadership team. · Staff to verify with Samantha Eisner whether there are any additional points to be raised, regarding the original input provided by the Board. Q10 | comment #2 whether constituents parts of SO/AC that have individual legal rights can take part in future AP funding processes. Chair believes this topic was already answered by Sam/Board but we need to clarify with BC if this is what they meant. Action item #7: Q10 | comment #2 BC to provide additional clarification, regarding “SO/ACs that are not directly affiliated with ICANN” Q10 | comment #3 * Erika: Take this off the agenda. Made clear by the board that they are overseeing the budget, if they need access to this amount, that is a possibility. Up to SO/AC to discuss * Maarten: If this would happen, this would be a Decision that is subject to Empowered Community consideration (like all Board decisions) so the Board would be careful in doing so Action item #8: Q10 | comment #3 CCWG will not change its original recommendation Q10 | comment #4 SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can. This point needs to be clarified Action item #9: Q10 | comment #4 Leadership team to review the advice received to date. Further clarify that SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can. Q10 | comment #5 Action item #10: Q10 | comment #5: CCWG will not change its original recommendation Q10 | comment #7 * Leadership recommendation is not responding to the original point. It is addressing the previous topic. * Goes to same basket as first point. Action item #11: Q10 | comment #7: CCWG to first take a decision on the mechanism, and then further discuss this topic. Judith: ALSes are separate entities. Members of SOs/ACs or Cs have to be treated differently than the SOs/ACs Erika: SO/AC will not be able to apply for the funds. Constituents that are legal entities would be able. But: this needs to be verified by the leadership team. To be cross-referenced with the comments received on this topic and the input provided by ICANN Org and the Board. Q10 | comment #8 Action item #12: Q10 | comment #8 Staff to review work plan and to determine when would be best to address the response to the 5 October 2018 Board letter. Q10 | comment #9 & #10 To be taken off the agenda. Similar to topic previously discussed. Action item #13: Q10 | Comment #9 & #10 CCWG will not change its original recommendation 5. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 8 May at 14.00 UTC. Thank you all. Bye. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0