- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Message for Erika to send to CCWG today [Subject: CCWG Auction Proceeds Consensus Call - Deadline 21 May 2020]
by Erika Mann May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Dear all, Thank you to those who participated in the final poll on mechanisms. Please find attached the Final Report reflecting results of the poll (see poll results in excel format here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126432332/CCWG%20Auction%2…>). With 15 members and 4 participants responding, poll results indicate strong support for mechanism A, followed by mechanism B with the majority of members supporting that the CCWG should recommend two mechanisms. Section 4.7 of the Report and Recommendation #1 have been updated to reflect this result. Seeing that there were no additional comments on the last revision circulated, the leadership team now considers the Final Report complete. The next step in the process is for the Co-Chairs to make a designation of the level of consensus for the recommendations in the report (see charter <https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter> for details, an excerpt of which is included below). *We believe that the CCWG supports the recommendations in this report by Consensus. Consensus is defined as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” If you are a member of the CCWG and you disagree with this designation, please respond to the email list no later than **21 May** at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today).* *Please note that at this stage, we are not revisiting the substance of the recommendations or asking you to state your positions on specific recommendations. We are requesting a response only if you believe that the consensus designation is incorrect. If you would like to submit a minority viewpoint on the content of the recommendations, **you may do so, but this is separate from the consensus call. Minority statements will be due 28 May** at 23:59 UTC (**21** days from today). **M**inority statements may be included in an annex **to the Final Report **or linked from **the Final Report to **the wiki, depending on the length and number of statements received**.* Please also find attached a draft cover letter to send to the Chartering Organizations with the Final Report. *If you have questions or comments on this draft letter, please send to the* *email list no later than **21 May* *at 23:59 UTC (14 days from today).* We hope you are all well, take good care and, kind regards, Erika and Ching *Excerpt from the CCWG Charter regarding Consensus Designation:* *In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:* *a)* * Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection* *b)* * Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree* *In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.*

6 7

Urgent Action required | Important Zoom update information
by Terri Agnew May 6, 2020

May 6, 2020

Dear all, This is to inform you action is required to update zoom meetings to Zoom 5.0 or later by 06 May 2020. Please see the blog with information and how to update if needed. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/further-securing-zoom-meetings [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> Thank you. Kind regards, GNSO Support Team

1 0

The Consensus Playbook
by Julie Bisland April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Dear all, Please see the completed Consensus Playbook and background information below. Best Regards, GNSO Team == Consensus Playbook Published Originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 initiative and a subsequent Additional Budget Request (ABR), the Consensus Playbook has been completed for the ICANN community to reference and use. The Consensus Playbook can be downloaded here: http://go.icann.org/consensus [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_consensus&…> This playbook was developed by an external vendor (Consensus Building Institute - CBI.org [cbi.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cbi.org_&d=DwMGaQ&…>) via an Additional Budget Request [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_3bkd5Oz&d…> (ABR) for FY20 submitted by the GNSO Council, based on PDP 3.0 improvements [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_pdp3dot0&d…>. The ICANN Board approved<https://community.icann.org/x/Wxq8BQ> the ABR contingent upon the playbook being developed with broad applicability across the community, and not just limited to GNSO PDPs. Hence, this Consensus Playbook aims to provide community volunteers with practical tools and best practices for building consensus, bridging differences, and breaking deadlocks within ICANN processes beyond just GNSO working groups. In developing the playbook, CBI interviewed fourteen (14) ICANN community leaders across ICANN’s SOs and ACs, who shared their extensive consensus building experience in leading and participating in working groups and community groups. The playbook stresses that consensus building should be considered as a journey and it does not just take place at the end of a group’s deliberations. To that end, we’d like to draw your attention to Appendix A, which serves as a reference guide to help inform you which of the fifteen (15) “plays” are applicable to the various phases of the community’s work. It is important to note that this playbook does not seek to change the definition of consensus or the methods of decision making as prescribed in each community group’s rules and procedure; it does not seek to introduce any new requirements either. It is designed for the ICANN community and is only permitted to be used by the ICANN community in support of ICANN related work. The playbook shall not be used for any non-ICANN related purposes. All ICANN community volunteers are strongly encouraged to review the playbook. We anticipate additional opportunities for the ICANN community to discuss the contents and practical utility of the playbook.

1 0

DEADLINE TOMORROW: Comments on Revised Final Report
by Emily Barabas April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Dear all, The deadline to provide comments, questions, or suggested edits on the attached revision to the Final Report is tomorrow, Friday, 17 April 2020. Members and participants -- don’t forget to complete this poll on proposed mechanism(s) by Friday, 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5. As members serve as representatives of the Chartering Organizations, it is particularly important that all members respond to this poll. At this time, only 8 of 23 members have completed the poll. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 13 April 2020 at 10:37 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: REMINDER: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Dear all, As a reminder, please note the following upcoming deadlines: * Please provide comments, questions, or suggested edits on the attached revision to the Final Report no later than this Friday, 17 April 2020. * Please complete this poll on proposed mechanism(s) poll no later than Friday, 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5 Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 2 April 2020 at 18:39 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Dear CCWG members and participants, Please find attached revisions to the CCWG Final Report based on agreements reached by the CCWG in your review of public comments. A summary of these CCWG agreements is also attached for reference. You can find the public comment review templates, which provide context for the CCWG agreements, on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw. If you have comments, questions, or suggested edits on the Final Report, please provide this input on the CCWG mailing list no later than Friday 17 April 2020. As discussed on recent calls, following the review of public comments, the leadership team is also requesting that CCWG members and participants complete a final poll on mechanism(s) to recommend in the Final Report. Please complete this poll no later than Friday 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5. The format of this poll is very similar to the that used for the indicative poll held prior to publication of the proposed Final Report. Thanks in advance for your input on the revised report and participation in the poll. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

Hi Anne, Thanks for your message. Please see responses inline below in green. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 00:11 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Many thanks, Emily. I have two comments and one question before taking this back to the CSG for review: 1. In the text at the top of page 28 of the redlined draft Final Report, I believe the following sentence should end after the word, “applications” in order to be consistent with the change agreed by the CCWG in its review of public comment. The CCWG agreed that currently existing ICANN accountability measures such as IRP may not be used to challenge decisions on individual applications that are not successful. (DELETE “that are not successful”.) Thanks for catching this. This text will be removed, consistent with the other edits in this section. 2. I believe we will need to see at least a draft of the letter to the ICANN Board that is referred to in the Action Items before we can conduct the Consensus Call. Note that only the report and recommendations will be subject to a consensus call. These are the official outputs of the Working Group that will be considered by the Chartering Organizations and the Board. The letter will provide brief context for the report and will contain several items raised in public comment that the CCWG considered out of its scope but that may be relevant as further work is completed on this topic. While the contents of the letter should not impact your ability to participate in the consensus call on the recommendations, the leadership team will nonetheless provide a draft of the letter soon so that CCWG members have time to review before the CCWG completes its work. 3. Is the informal poll that we are being asked to take again before April 24 a question of our personal opinion or is it expected to be in line with anticipated Consensus Call? Thanks for raising this question. If you are a member of the CCWG representing a group, it is expected that your response to the poll aligns with your group’s position on the mechanisms (to the extent that your group has a position). Participants are not serving as representatives, and therefore may respond in their personal capacity. Note that the leadership team will be focused most closely on the responses of members in reviewing the poll results. Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:39 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG members, Please find attached revisions to the CCWG Final Report based on agreements reached by the CCWG in your review of public comments. A summary of these CCWG agreements is also attached for reference. You can find the public comment review templates, which provide context for the CCWG agreements, on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw. If you have comments, questions, or suggested edits on the Final Report, please provide this input on the CCWG mailing list no later than Friday 17 April 2020. As discussed on recent calls, following the review of public comments, the leadership team is also requesting that CCWG members and participants complete a final poll on mechanism(s) to recommend in the Final Report. Please complete this poll no later than Friday 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5 [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. The format of this poll is very similar to the that used for the indicative poll held prior to publication of the proposed Final Report. Thanks in advance for your input on the revised report and participation in the poll. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 2

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: REMINDER: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

Hi John, Please feel free to leave the response to #4 blank and fill in this response in the comments (question #6). Kind regards, Emily On 13/04/2020, 18:37, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > * Please complete this poll on proposed mechanism(s) poll no later than next Friday, 24 April 2020: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r… I see the poll but it doesn't have place for my answer to #4 which is that the CCWG should not recommend any mechanisms at all. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIBAg&c=FmY1u…

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

Hi Anne, I believe I sent a response to the mailing list on April 8. I will resend. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday, 13 April 2020 at 17:07 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: "erika(a)erikamann.com" <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Hi Emily. I saw your reminder, but I have not seen a response to my questions below sent April 7. Re: Comment 2, do we have a draft letter to the Board? Re: Question 3, it will be difficult for me to respond to the poll without knowing the answer to Question 3. Thank you for following up. Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:11 PM To: 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: 'Erika Mann' <erika(a)erikamann.com> Subject: RE: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Many thanks, Emily. I have two comments and one question before taking this back to the CSG for review: 1. In the text at the top of page 28 of the redlined draft Final Report, I believe the following sentence should end after the word, “applications” in order to be consistent with the change agreed by the CCWG in its review of public comment. The CCWG agreed that currently existing ICANN accountability measures such as IRP may not be used to challenge decisions on individual applications that are not successful. (DELETE “that are not successful”.) 2. I believe we will need to see at least a draft of the letter to the ICANN Board that is referred to in the Action Items before we can conduct the Consensus Call. 3. Is the informal poll that we are being asked to take again before April 24 a question of our personal opinion or is it expected to be in line with anticipated Consensus Call? Thank you, Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:39 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear CCWG members, Please find attached revisions to the CCWG Final Report based on agreements reached by the CCWG in your review of public comments. A summary of these CCWG agreements is also attached for reference. You can find the public comment review templates, which provide context for the CCWG agreements, on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw. If you have comments, questions, or suggested edits on the Final Report, please provide this input on the CCWG mailing list no later than Friday 17 April 2020. As discussed on recent calls, following the review of public comments, the leadership team is also requesting that CCWG members and participants complete a final poll on mechanism(s) to recommend in the Final Report. Please complete this poll no later than Friday 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5 [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. The format of this poll is very similar to the that used for the indicative poll held prior to publication of the proposed Final Report. Thanks in advance for your input on the revised report and participation in the poll. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

Dear CCWG members, Please find attached revisions to the CCWG Final Report based on agreements reached by the CCWG in your review of public comments. A summary of these CCWG agreements is also attached for reference. You can find the public comment review templates, which provide context for the CCWG agreements, on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw. If you have comments, questions, or suggested edits on the Final Report, please provide this input on the CCWG mailing list no later than Friday 17 April 2020. As discussed on recent calls, following the review of public comments, the leadership team is also requesting that CCWG members and participants complete a final poll on mechanism(s) to recommend in the Final Report. Please complete this poll no later than Friday 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5. The format of this poll is very similar to the that used for the indicative poll held prior to publication of the proposed Final Report. Thanks in advance for your input on the revised report and participation in the poll. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

2 2

REMINDER: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, please note the following upcoming deadlines: * Please provide comments, questions, or suggested edits on the attached revision to the Final Report no later than this Friday, 17 April 2020. * Please complete this poll on proposed mechanism(s) poll no later than next Friday, 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5 Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 2 April 2020 at 18:39 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Action for CCWG Members and Participants: Review Revised Report and Complete Poll Dear CCWG members and participants, Please find attached revisions to the CCWG Final Report based on agreements reached by the CCWG in your review of public comments. A summary of these CCWG agreements is also attached for reference. You can find the public comment review templates, which provide context for the CCWG agreements, on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw. If you have comments, questions, or suggested edits on the Final Report, please provide this input on the CCWG mailing list no later than Friday 17 April 2020. As discussed on recent calls, following the review of public comments, the leadership team is also requesting that CCWG members and participants complete a final poll on mechanism(s) to recommend in the Final Report. Please complete this poll no later than Friday 24 April 2020: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SRHH2L5. The format of this poll is very similar to the that used for the indicative poll held prior to publication of the proposed Final Report. Thanks in advance for your input on the revised report and participation in the poll. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

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

March 26, 2020

Dear Anne, Thank you very much. Emily just shared the template for public comment question 4, including the leadership recommendation and CCWG agreement for each of the comments. Regarding CCWG Agreement #18, this is what was included in the template: Add text clarifying that Recommendation #7 is not intended to impact the existing rights of the Empowered Community under the Bylaws. Based on the CCWG discussions regarding the review of the public comments received, the leadership team will be circulating proposed revisions to the report soon, and there will be an opportunity to comment, to make sure we captured everything correctly. Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 18:41 To: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org>, Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC Thank you Joke, with respect to the “Decision” section, first bullet point, I think the final decision was to include the new proposed language in the Final Report (after Sam modifies it) and to include the second question to ICANN Legal and the response in the Implementation Guidance. Anne From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 7:59 AM To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The recordings are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report (focus on responses to public comment question #4, see attached public comment review template) Comment #1 * No additional comments raised. Comment #2 * Input from ICANN legal received. Comment from the BC: “The BC notes that the CCWG has already recognized that Bylaws must be amended to eliminate Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel from the available remedies to challenge grants. These are amendments to Fundamental By-Laws and which should require Empowered Community approval.” · Question for ICANN Legal: It is the leadership team’s understanding that a carve out would be needed from existing accountability mechanisms as any Board decision could be challenged under the existing accountability mechanisms (including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds). Therefore, an exemption is needed if Board decisions on auction proceeds are not challengeable under existing accountability mechanisms. Can you confirm that this is correct? · Legal Response: Yes, this is correct. This will require an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, as the BC note suggests, in order to effectuate this carve out. The Fundamental Bylaws process requires Empowered Community approval. This does not mean that the Empowered Community must approve the CCWG Final Report, though we should be clear (as there is cross-over between the Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community and the Chartering Organizations for the CCWG) that a Bylaws change is necessary and will be forthcoming. Of course, the Bylaws change will have to be appropriately drafted and will be subject to all appropriate processes. Anne: grants themselves are not Board decisions, but evaluation panel decisions. The response from legal relates to the bylaws amendments. The confusing language is "including the approval of allocation of auction proceeds" - allocation is normally a budget term and we have to clarify that EC powers are not diminished as to the overall Budget item Legal: we understood this as “how things are challenged, at large” Comment from the BC: ". . .The BC is also concerned that the final recommendation does not contain sufficient detail to ensure that the empowered community retains the ability to oversee ICANNs proposed budget and the disbursement of the auction proceeds. In particular, the Empowered Community should retain its ability to enforce accountability mechanisms related to items in the ICANN budget that are proposed to be allocated to grant making activity. The Final Report should also clarify that any changes to the bylaws needed to implement the report are not intended to strip the Empowered Community of its budgetary authority." · Question for Sam: Regarding the text in bold, it is not clear to the leadership team that the Empowered Community is relevant to the allocation of auction proceeds. As auction proceeds funds are kept and accounted for separately, does it even fall within the EC’s purview? · Legal Response: The place where the Empowered Community's powers come in is only in relationship its specified powers in the Bylaws. The Empowered Community powers includes rejection powers on the Five-year strategic plan, on the Five-year operating plan, on the annual operating plan and on the annual budget, which would include grant making activities as relevant. There are no plans to change any of those Empowered Community powers other than in the broader scope of carving out individual application decisions from ICANN's Reconsideration or Independent Review processes. To the extent that there are items represented in ICANN's budget or operating plans that relate to grant making activities, the Empowered Community powers would be applicable. If there are separate budgets or plans that are appropriate to maintain for ICANN's separate grant-making mechanism work, the details of how that interacts with the Bylaws-mandated budgets and plans will need to be addressed during implementation. Allan: the IRP is not limited to Board Actions. Including actions or in-actions of staff. If someone applies for a grant, and we say no, they do not have a right to appeal through the accountability mechanisms. Anne: response form ICANN legal is helpful. Language we had regarding change of fundamental bylaw to be reviewed by Anne. Sam: IRP does not extend to contractors. It is about whether ICANN followed its Bylaws/Mission. if ICANN improperly relies on actions taken by a subcontractor, then you challenge ICANN’s action, not the subcontractor’s action. Emily: I don’t believe there is currently language in the proposed Final Report addressing the Empowered Community. This may be something that the leadership team needs to take back and propose language to include  Sam: in the future, do we need further details regarding the budgetary or planning powers by ECA? Language as currently in place should be sufficient. Allan: no need to mention the ECA in the report, but to be on the safe side, include it anyhow. We are aware of the situation. We understand that to change the EC, we need a fundamental bylaw change Allan: limit in the implementation guidance to the 2nd question. Sam: does not want it represented in the bylaws. Small details could cause interpretation issues in the bylaws Allan: put a statement in the report, that if the EC felt that the tranche allocated to the AP, was either too small/large it could be subject to community action. Erika: this was not yet discussed. Approval by board. Sam: We’d want to coordinate with Xavier on any language that addresses specific budget items Anne: Suggest "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Sam: we probably want to make it a bit broader to reflect that the EC powers are broader than just over the budget, but I think that your language is a good starting point Decision: · frame the issue raised, do not expand language in the report itself, but add to the list of issues that needs to be addressed during the implementation phase. · Add language, based on Anne’s suggestion "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current ByLaws". Take into account Sam’s remark regarding making it broader Comment #3 * No further comments by the group Comment #4 * No further comments by the group * CCWG chair expresses thanks for Board involvement and input Comment #5 * Support of the leadership recommendation by Carolina, Anne, Judith, Vanda * Allan: similar to previous discussion regarding feasibility study / assessment. Comment #6 * No further comments by the group 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/YFzjWps03Do8ski9kzKxI4KueUiZ2Ilh1xlBSPGTV…] Thank you all. Stay safe, and take care. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGa…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1