- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 10 August
by Joke Braeken Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August 2017 at 14.00 UTC. A small reminder that you are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities - as well as the clustering of examples - ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG. Best regards, Joke Braeken Proposed Agenda CCWG-AP meeting – Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI 3. Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management 4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) 5. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 16.00 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

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recordings below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-27jul17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8tlt4fyef3/<https://participate.icann.org/p8tlt4fyef3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> 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/YGzwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie --------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 27 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Erika Mann:It looks like it is working. Not sure though if Adobe slides will work ... Erika Mann:It looks like I have a poor connection judith hellerstein:HI All Erika Mann:Hi, hi! Marc Gauw:Good afternoon from Amsterdam Julf Helsingius:likewise Asha Hemrajani:Good evening all Carolina Caeiro:Hi all Ching Chiao:Hi all Manal Ismail:Hello everyone :) .. Sylvia Cadena:hi everyone Julf Helsingius:Absolutely! Carolina Caeiro:of course! Nadira AL-Araj:please do Marc Gauw:Brilliant judith hellerstein:please go ahead Manal Ismail:Please do .. Wale Bakare:Hi all Stephanie Perrin:!!!!!! !!! Becky Burr:good morning from DC Stephanie Perrin:please do, having eeeeee eeeeee eeee ee eeeee Stephanie Perrin:typing issues Sylvia Cadena:no objections Erika, nice gesture Kavouss Arasteh: I AM WAITING TO BE DIALED UP PLS Kavouss Arasteh:pLS ADVISE TO CALL ME ,TKS Julie Bisland:calling you now, Kavouss Wale Bakare:I think, there is need to fletch out the advantages and disadvantages of both internal and external Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Secretariat, pls kindly advise to dial me up Erika Mann:Kavouss can you hear us Erika Mann:Kavouss we come to you in a second once you have audio Kavouss Arasteh:Yes but pls dial my phone Kavouss Arasteh:I am hearing you through PC Julie Bisland:please stand by, Kavouss. Operator is dialing you. Marc Gauw:...... <or whether an existing entity should be used>.... may also be .... <or whether an existing entiTIES should be used> Julie Bisland:Kavouss is on audio now. Carolina Caeiro:I agree with Marc Kavouss Arasteh:How many entities we are looking for Hadia Elminiawi:apologies for joining late Evan Leibovitch:There is a careful line where oversight ends and meddling/political bias begins Manal Ismail:@Marc are we listing theoritical options or is there a specific advantage for using multiple entities (and how to ensure consistency across?) Kavouss Arasteh:What is the difference between existing entities and Internal in ICANN? Kavouss Arasteh:wHY MULTIPLE ENTITIES? Kavouss Arasteh:Inside our outside ICANN Marc Gauw:@Manual: since the value of the funds is huge, and since there are many foundations in the world that may help, it may make sense to use 'more' existing entities Manal Ismail:@Sylvia I see so multiple entities are meant to handle different themes of fields, right? Nadira AL-Araj:Regarding the external organization(s). Is there a limiation on the georgraphical origion of these oranization(s) Kavouss Arasteh:sylvia, you said one single place? Are we talking in terms of Place or in terms of entities Wale Bakare:I think, there is need to fletch out the advantages and disadvantages of both internal and external Kavouss Arasteh:Wale do you mean to have a list of Advantages and Disadvantageous? Manal Ismail:@Marc thanks for the clarifictaion .. perhaps dividing them by theme/objective/topic may make sense in that context .. Wale Bakare:How do we define the mechanism for evaluation of proposal and what if the selected entity scope of work goes beyond the mechanism put in place, as its is highly likely should more applications are received more than expected? Wale Bakare:<<Wale do you mean to have a list of Advantages and Disadvantageous?>> Yes, @ Kavouss Wale Bakare:Yes Wale Bakare:I agree Marc Gauw:@kavous: why are many entities more costly ? Nadira AL-Araj:I support the move of having a proposed model in how another multi-national organizaiton handling similar situation and then let CCWG members provide thier comments. Marc Gauw:Not if 'many entities' are existing entities that can right-away help out... Wale Bakare:Yes, we can hear you Evan Marc Gauw:@Evan: exactly! And the good news is that there are a number of these kind of entities Sylvia Cadena:agree. judith hellerstein:+1 Evan I agree. We should not reinvent the wheel Wale Bakare:This is the reason why we should identify advantages and disadvantages of having either internel or external entity. I think, Evan has captured few of those. judith hellerstein:Does anyone know what the US state department does for the grants its gives out for non-profits Sylvia Cadena:agree. Wale Bakare:USAID does it well, i think Sylvia Cadena:that is why the evaluation of proposals and the due diligence is so important. so that we can build on trust. great point Sebastian Julie Bisland:please note: Samantha Eisner has joined audio only Sylvia Cadena:control Joke Braeken:thank you Julie Sylvia Cadena:agree with Sebastian, there are parallels we can use to keep the spirit of what ICANN does, where there are issues that are different for every region, constituency, issues addressed, etc Evan Leibovitch:The issue is not neceesarily where the evaluation entity is located but where its own subject focus lies. There are some that specialize or have special competence in ICT4D projects, some in infrastructure, some in education etc. Erika Mann:Xavier can you hear us? Sylvia Cadena:yes, please do Sylvia Cadena:I don't agree. that is very premature, not knowing the objectives Marc Gauw:Note that you can apply the 5-10 % rule on funding costs Sylvia Cadena:yes Nadira AL-Araj:Please can you send these questions to me to ask someone who work at DAI Nadira AL-Araj:yes, I agree with Evan, creating in house organization, it is very costy and I did some reserach on this issue. It was a consensus that dealing with external established entities are much more cost effective. judith hellerstein:I agree with Evan, we need to make a decision now. Kavouss Arasteh:The speaker talked about the costs of internal entity but external could have more costs than internal .Moreover, are are compromising between the quality and successfulness or just we are worried about the cost. Itshould be tradeoff between the two Marc Gauw:A bit more clarification on the '5 - 10 %' : many external foundation work with donations on a 'tax-exempt' status. However you only get/keep your 'tax-exempt' status provided you donate at least 90-95 % of your incoming funds matthew shears:I would have thought that the structure chosen should largely be determined by the purposes to which the funds are being put Sylvia Cadena:agree, but are we using the survey responses to Evan Leibovitch:Kavouss, an external entity woould have a fixed (and known) overheard for its operations. External would NEVER have more costs than doing this internally Kavouss Arasteh:Marika, pls note that there is third option and that is a hybrid Sylvia Cadena:agree with Evan Sylvia Cadena:fine with me, thanks Wale Bakare:How are we so sure about the external vs. internal cost implication? Let us get this clearly matthew shears:+ 1 Wale Sylvia Cadena:please focus on the outline of question 7. is about solicitation and assessment of proposals. not evaluation of outcomes for proposals funded. Call again the group to focus on the scope of the question so that we can move forward. the evaluation part is on another question. Julie Bisland:Xavier's line has dropped again. Wale Bakare:I agree with Sylvia, let us focus on the charter question 7. The page 5 of the Q7 states this clearly as guide for this discussion Evan Leibovitch:EVERY solution is a hybrid, as of course ICANN has its own obligations so not ALL can be done outside. Even the "external" option assumes ICANN will need some controls, Erika Mann:Indeed Evan Evan Leibovitch:So I still am unclear of its consideration as a discrete option Sylvia Cadena:great list of ideas there. it is wonderful to see! Marc Gauw:@Marika: Your presentation above looks to have less feedback than the link with the SurveyMonkey feedbacks. Could that be correct ? Sylvia Cadena:The mind map is a distilled version of the survey Sylvia Cadena:right, Marika? Marc Gauw:Distilled from my feedback :-) judith hellerstein:I understand it to be open standards Wale Bakare:The list of ideas are overlapped Kavouss Arasteh:There are considerable materials on open internet judith hellerstein:Also make sure that we meet the WC3 standards judith hellerstein:regarding accessibility Marc Gauw:Aha... thanks judith hellerstein:open internet can also be one where there are no internet shut downs Ching Chiao:yes Marika I'll send notes shortly Wale Bakare:Even, Fake News issue may be grouped as part of open internet judith hellerstein:OK I can send you my points via email. Who should I send it to Nadira AL-Araj:+1 Marika, Marika Konings:@Judith - please send it to the mailing list so everyone can see and comment as needed judith hellerstein:Great thanks Sylvia Cadena:share on the list so we all have a chance to be informed. that helps juggling ideas and clarifications we might need Wale Bakare:+1, Sylvia judith hellerstein:Yes a link to the google doc would be helpful Joke Braeken:here is the link to the google doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Sylvia Cadena:agree with Marika. using the survey responses will really help Kavouss Arasteh:Erika, why we divided questions to be answered internally and externally. how we decide that a given question is to be answered internally and other question to be raised externally matthew shears:I think moving to prioirty areas based on further consideration of the clusters is a good way forward matthew shears:allows for greater focus judith hellerstein:I agree we should discount the ones that scored the lowest Nadira AL-Araj:But there is a clear agreement on question 6 of the survey Kavouss Arasteh:Yes , if that is the case and we ask the expert all questions , I agree Nadira AL-Araj:The priority it was on the buttom of the list matthew shears:+ 1 Judith Sylvia Cadena:that is also a way to encourage members and participants to really participate through the surveys and for the group to use them to move forward on the discussion Marc Gauw:I have a AOB question: Maybe I missed it (due to my holiday), but did we ever get a response from the Icann Board on our 'Letter to the Board' of April /May ? Evan Leibovitch:Don't worry about this so much. If a criteria set is outside a funding body's expertise, they'll turn us down first. Erika Mann:I saw your point Marc judith hellerstein:Can we reschedule the calls that fall on Jewish Holidays, such as the one on Rosh Hashannah Marika Konings:@Marc - No, I don't believe so Asha Hemrajani:Sorry I cannot speak. I can hear Asha Hemrajani:No comment for now. Marc Gauw:No news is good news :-) Wale Bakare:But delay can be no good news Marika Konings:@Judith - unfortunately there are many holidays (both religious and national holidays) that often conflict with CCWG meetings. Marc Gauw:Bye bye all ! Hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all Ching Chiao:thanks everyone! judith hellerstein:Bye all matthew shears:thanks Asha Hemrajani:Thank you. Great call Erika! Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye all! Hadia Elminiawi:bye Carolina Caeiro:Bye, thanks! Joke Braeken:thank you all. bye Brad Verd (RSSAC):thanks Erika Mann:Bye Thanks all Manal Ismail:Thanks .. bye .. Nadira AL-Araj:thank you Sylvia Cadena:bye

1 0

Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
by Marika Konings July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 27 July 2017: These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking * Roll call will be taken from AC 2. Welcome - DOI * Note that the review of charter question #4 and a presentation on investment management are planned for the meeting on 10 August 3. Review responses to charter question #7 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-RZQTTHJ6) * Majority of respondents support not having ICANN org responsible for the solicitation and evaluation of proposals * Responses split though on whether it should be a newly to be created entity that is responsible or whether an existing entity should be used for solicitation and evaluation of proposals. * Majority of respondents support the involvement of ICANN the community in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals. * The overall timeframe of the effort may also play a factor in deciding whether or not a new entity should be created or an existing entity should be used. * Question may also be whether an existing entity or entities should be used. It could prove more challenging though. * May also be a question for experts to provide input on. * Consider a follow up survey to solicit further input on whether a new entity is to be created or whether an existing entity or entities are to be used. * Solicitation may be more forward - could be through online applications, many organisations are well versed in this. Evaluation may be more challenging and could benefit from the involvement of multiple organisations. * Should also consider supporting giving grants to existing organizations that are not necessarily project related. In the form of donations. * Will need input on what is possible while respecting legal and fiduciary requirements. There are other foundations that manage funds for other entities but need to know whether that is allowed. * May be premature to decide now on one or multiple organisations. * No need to reinvent the wheel, there are numerous entitities who have done this and done it well. If ICANN is to create a new entity, it may create more time and effort than it actually would take to disburse the funds. Also risk of 'political bias'. * Need to be sure that trust exists whatever entity is used. Expertise and competence should be key factors. * Maybe consider parallel with allocation of IP addresses - give critical resource to parties that are trusted. * Ask from legal and financial point of view how these structures could look: internal structure - new unit, within ICANN, externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work, externally - working with already existing entities. This latter option could also be in combination with the other two options. This would likely take the form of a straw man / high level approach, ideally also with some numbers to give an idea from a budgetary perspective. Numbers could also be checked with existing funds to get a sense of what it might take from a resource perspective. 5-10% rule could be applied on funding costs. ny external foundation work with donations on a 'tax-exempt' status. However you only get/keep your 'tax-exempt' status provided you donate at least 90-95 % of your incoming funds. * Premature to start talking to external organisations - need further details before doing so. * To evaluate internal vs. external would also need to get insight into costs of creating this internally. Externally it would likely have a fixed % of the funds that are to be managed. Internally the costs are a big unknown. This question needs to be answered very early on. Action item #1: Ask ICANN Finance and Legal to provide their input on the different options that have been discussed (internal structure - new unit, within ICANN, externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work, externally - working with already existing entities. This latter option could also be in combination with the other two options.). To be reviewed and discussed during meeting on 24 August. 4. Review responses to survey on objectives of fund allocation & discuss next steps * See mind map circulated and result of the survey (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-July/000343.html) * Staff to work with leadership team on clustering of examples and reviewing overall objectives * CCWG encouraged to provide input as well as consider definition of terms used in the objectives such as Open Internet. * Focus seems to be on gTLDs - may need to be broadened. * CCWG will also need to review whether there are any objectives that should be discarded at this stage. Consider whether it is possible to identify priority areas within an overall objective. Action item #2: Staff to work with leadership team to identify clusters of examples and review where further defining of objectives may be needed. 5. Reminder – please identify questions for external experts (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg…) Action item #3: CCWG to add further questions to google doc, specifically focusing on the charter questions that need to be addressed before moving into the next phase. Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting Thursday 27 July at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 27 July at 14.00 UTC. As a reminder, please participate in the survey on objectives of fund allocation by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC if you have not done so yet: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCWGAPObjectives<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting – Thursday 27 July at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI 3. Review responses to charter question #7 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-RZQTTHJ6) 4. Review responses to survey on objectives of fund allocation & discuss next steps 5. Reminder – please identify questions for external experts (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg… 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting (Thursday 10 August 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-…>.

5 7

Please participate - Survey on fund allocation objectives
by Marika Konings July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

Dear All, Thank you very much for all the input received. Based on the input and some further review of the approach, please find hereby the link to the updated survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCWGAPObjectives. Note that the order of questions has been changed, by first asking you to prioritize the objectives identified to date. Furthermore, we realized that under each objective it would probably be possible to identify projects that would fall within or without the mission, as such, it was decided to focus the survey on this second level, projects that are deemed to be consistent with ICANN’s mission for each objective so that the CCWG will be able to start focusing in on the specifics. Obviously, this is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ kind of exercise, or majority decides and as such any agreed outcomes will need to be further tested with the broader community as well as the ICANN Board but the hope is that this will provide the CCWG with a solid starting point for further deliberations on this specific issue. Note that as part of the review of the results, staff will also aim to pull in those example projects that were suggested in response to the earlier survey (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/<https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/)>). Please respond to the survey by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC at the latest. The results of the survey will be shared in advance of the next meeting. 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-…>.

2 1

Reminder: Re: Please participate - Survey on fund allocation objectives
by Marika Konings July 24, 2017

July 24, 2017

Reminder – please participate in the survey by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCWGAPObjectives. To date only 2 members and 2 participants have completed the survey. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:49 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - Survey on fund allocation objectives Dear All, Thank you very much for all the input received. Based on the input and some further review of the approach, please find hereby the link to the updated survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCWGAPObjectives[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Note that the order of questions has been changed, by first asking you to prioritize the objectives identified to date. Furthermore, we realized that under each objective it would probably be possible to identify projects that would fall within or without the mission, as such, it was decided to focus the survey on this second level, projects that are deemed to be consistent with ICANN’s mission for each objective so that the CCWG will be able to start focusing in on the specifics. Obviously, this is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ kind of exercise, or majority decides and as such any agreed outcomes will need to be further tested with the broader community as well as the ICANN Board but the hope is that this will provide the CCWG with a solid starting point for further deliberations on this specific issue. Note that as part of the review of the results, staff will also aim to pull in those example projects that were suggested in response to the earlier survey (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>). Please respond to the survey by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC at the latest. The results of the survey will be shared in advance of the next meeting. 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

4 6

Not able to participate this Thursday
by Dietmar Stefitz July 24, 2017

July 24, 2017

1 0

For your review - CCWG AP Objective(s) Survey
by Marika Konings July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Dear All, Per action item #4, please find at the following link a preview of the proposed survey concerning charter question #2 – objective(s) for fund allocation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=XtF4g0B8MN3nV7tnkhMvhFXhCiXyZVBG…. Please remember that this is a preview – no responses will be recorded. You are encouraged to share any comments and/or proposed edits regarding the poll with the mailing list by Wednesday 19 July by close of business (wherever you are). Do not use the comment function that is available in preview mode as it is not possible for others to review comments or proposed edits, only for the owner of the survey. The objective is to launch the survey on Thursday of this week so that the responses can be reviewed during next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 17:39 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please take particular note of the following action item: Action item #2: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet for charter question #4 are encouraged to complete the survey by 20 July (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) Action item #3: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #7 by 20 July (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) You will find the responses received to date in the attached documents. Please make sure that your views are recorded by responding to the survey. Best regards, Marika =================== New gTLD Auction Proceeds Meeting – 13 July 2017 - Notes 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone when not speaking 2. Welcome / DOI * Productive meeting held at ICANN59 - those not able to participate are encouraged to review the transcript and recording. * Everyone is encouraged to participate in surveys and other requests for input as it will be imperative to be able to meet the timeline as set out in the work plan 3. Review of survey results charter question #4 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) * To date, 15 responses have been received. * Currently views on question #1 re. timeframe for allocation of funds are equally split between one-off exercise and long lasting mechanism through possible investment. * What return on investment could be obtained - that may determine what timeframe you would be looking at? How much money per year, if the CCWG would want to pursue this approach? This could be a potential question for external experts? Board may also have input on this question based on experience to date. Funds are currently invested with a view of preservation so return is currently pretty small as investments are low risk. * In relation to the duration of projects to be supported, current responses indicate that there is no specific preference for short time or long term projects. Will at some point also need to consider cost of overhead of short term vs. long term projects. Should provide some further info on what is considered short term vs. long term. Short term could be 1 year or less, medium term up to 3 years, long term 5 years and up. * Note that the different questions are interlinked. How money is allocated is linked to the magnitude of projects funded, duration, etc. Decisions on one will likely impact others. * Please consider that CCWG does not have to select one single mechanism. There can be one for short term / smaller amounts and other for long term / large disbursements. * Leadership team to review results and consider how to move forward if there is no clear preference on some of these questions. Action item #1: Staff to reach out Xavier to obtain further input regarding current investment and return. Action item #2: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #4 by 20 July. 4. Review of survey results charter question #7 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) * Difficult to answer without some further details - what would it entail for ICANN to do this? Would it be a question of 3 people or 20? Those details may determine whether it would be feasible and/or desirable to have ICANN manage this. May also be a question for external experts although some specificity would need to be provided to be able to provide a response. * One off - within ICANN, longer term - external to ICANN? May be dependent on the answer to that question. Setting up a foundation was not excluded when reviewing the AGB. * With regards to community volunteer involvement, need to consider not creating additional bureaucracy, costs as well as factor in possible conflicts of interest. Action item #3: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #7 by 20 July. 5. Review feedback received on charter question #2 survey & next steps (see attached documents) * No further feedback received on the mailing list. A number of updates made based on discussions during ICANN59 as well as one additional response received. * CCWG to determine how to move from this list to preliminary agreement on what the (preliminary) agreed objective for fund allocation should be. * Criteria must be implementable and consistent with ICANN's mission. Consider a possible check-list to see which of the criteria are most consistent with ICANN's mission. * Objectives and criteria are quite different. criteria refers normally (with grants management) to eligibility, forms to fill, licensing, use, copyright, etc. that is a very practical and operational. Objectives are very important as that help applicants to decide if they want to apply or not. * SDGs is a good framework to consider. To broaden the desired impact without broadening the mission (as ICANN's mission is narrow and might change again in the future). * Need to ask not only whether something is within ICANN"s mission, but also rationale. * Following determination / agreement on overall objective(s), CCWG could go back to concrete examples and stress test those against the mission. Action item #4: Staff to work with leadership team to develop survey that would assess support for different objectives as well as assessment of whether it falls within ICANN's mission and why. Share survey for preview with CCWG prior to launch. 6. Questions for external experts – reminder (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg… * CCWG may need to identify at which stage of the process external input will be most helpful. May require further details on scope/objective for it to be a helpful conversation. Maybe focus first on scope/objective related questions to help inform the current stage of deliberations. * May need one-pager to explain status of work so external experts have an understanding of the work of the CCWG, especially with regards to scope. That may also help identify umbrella questions. Action item #4: CCWG encouraged to add questions for external experts to the google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 7. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 27 July 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[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-13jul17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p83dhz7hqef/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3011643f1f7b0839 e912cc31b822a52f47df76a428b3e4dce623421de5d0964f> https://participate.icann.org/p83dhz7hqef/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7x cl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m =uidTA5V7RlRhqXBxGhLbVHOzk2lvDzLHK99nhjsKzW0&s=G7owpjQHHbzd9bFlrfdYX7Lik6lU9 W8BeG1n7HUqLpI&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/cGXwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/cGXwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri --------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 13 July 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Terri Agnew:agneda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_c GXwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ cGXwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YUI7JhUvFoiosy9JJKloLpjCGcdmyYm6_nGyKvUuou s&s=UrUG0M7-XVaC8qW8n23DYQGrfx6NbaNirnWtrL7quyE&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YUI7JhUvFoiosy9JJKloLpjCGcdmyYm6_nGyKvUuous&s=Ur UG0M7-XVaC8qW8n23DYQGrfx6NbaNirnWtrL7quyE&e= Ching Chiao:i am dilaing in now Dietmar Stefitz:Hi Everyone! Julf Helsingius:Good afternoon Olga Cavalli:Hi all good morning from Buenos Aires! Ching Chiao:Hello everyone! Joan Kerr:Hello eEveryone Sylvia Cadena:Hi everyone, thanks Ching. I will be in listening mode only. I have issues with my Sylvia Cadena:mike Ching Chiao:Noted Sylvia. Good to have you joining at this late hour Carolina Caeiro:Hi all Stephen Deerhake (.as):Morning all. judith hellerstein:Hi all Kavouss Arasteh:pls advise to dial me up Terri Agnew:@Kavouss, the op will dial out shortly Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise to dial arasteh as I am still in Geneva Ching Chiao:pls everyone u can scroll down to page 3 Joan Kerr:I just joined the committee, is the survey available to new members Kavouss Arasteh:Terry pls call me up Terri Agnew:@Kavouss, the op will dial out in a moment Kavouss Arasteh:The speaker talk too fast It is difficult to follow Kavouss Arasteh:pLS KINDLY REMIND EVERYBODY TO SLOW DOWN Kavouss Arasteh:aLAN, Glenn McKnight:As Alan stated the amount in an endowment sometimes limits the scope of the grants. Some of the requirements could obligate matching funds etc Terri Agnew:Kavouss is now connected on the telephone Kavouss Arasteh:Alan , ICANN IS NOT FORTUNE TELLER , whatever they say is subject to changes which are outside the control of ICANN. Kavouss Arasteh:When we refer to short, medium or long term project we could make a gestimate Carolina Caeiro:I think the results of question 4 are still displaying on the screen. Can we see Q7? Carolina Caeiro:Thanks! Hadia Elminiawi:@Marika - extend the survey for a couple more days Sylvia Cadena:short term 1 year or less. medium term up to 3 years. long term 5 years and up. Kavouss Arasteh:aLAN+1 Sylvia Cadena:managing grants up to 3 years have some manageable overheads. more than 3 years can be done through "unconditional gifts" based on organizational missions, not on project objectives. that is a different mechanism. Ching Chiao: Alan +1 Sylvia Cadena:agree with Alan Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Alan +1 Hadia Elminiawi:alan +1 Joan Kerr:@Alan: the funds could be tied to benchmarks, phases etc Joan Kerr:But make it easier to get the next batch Becky Burr:finally in - hello all Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Would love to have couple of days extra to fill in the survey! Stephen Deerhake (.as):+1 @Peter Sylvia Cadena:Please consider that we do not have to select one single mechanism. there can be one for short term / smaller amounts and other for long term / large disbursements Terri Agnew:finding the line Peter Vergote (ccNSO):I kinda like that suggestion Sylvia! Glenn McKnight:stopped Sylvia Cadena:ching, please consider my comment above. can't speak, issues with my mike. not typing fast enough Sylvia Cadena:thanks peter :) Ching Chiao:sure. Let me repeat that after Marika's walk-thru Sylvia Cadena:I think it is key to Sylvia Cadena:key to Peter Vergote (ccNSO):No point in keeping a mechanism alive once funds are depleted but given the scope and size of amounts you might want something semi-lasting and detached from ICANN to oversee and manage fund distribution. That come pretty close to what Sylvia had in mind I guess Marika Konings:Alan, this may also be a question for external experts? Sylvia Cadena:community support is key to assess technical projects. high impact of any program starts with a technically sound selection process Nadira AL-Araj:+1 Sylvia Maureen Hilyard:+1 Sylvia Glenn McKnight:Yes, our experience with IEEE technology projects must partner with locals and non technical partners. all bring to the table a full picture Nadira AL-Araj:They still need more refinement Maureen Hilyard:@Kavouss +1 Sylvia Cadena:objectives and criteria are quite different. criteria refers normally (with grants management) to eligibility, forms to fill, licensing, use, copyright, etc. that is a very practical and operational. objectives are very important as that help applicants to decide if they want to apply or not. Sylvia Cadena: SDGs is a good framework to consider. to broaden the desired impact without broadening the mission (as ICANN's mission is narrow and might change again in the future) Maureen Hilyard:SDGs would be a very relevant as a criteria so that projects can justify how they are sustainable Becky Burr:agree with Marika re focus Sylvia Cadena:good idea Marika Becky Burr:let's ask them to explain WHY they think it is within the Mission Ching Chiao:+1 Marika Becky Burr:simple assertions don't help Nadira AL-Araj:@Becky, regarding WHY it was conveyed to us that is legal perspective. Terri Agnew:@Ching your audio is cutting in and out Ching Chiao:sorry got cut off. am back to Adobe Ching Chiao:Terri -- could you arrange call back ? just sent you my number via email Terri Agnew:@Ching, I recieved your updated telephone number and having op dial out to you. Ching Chiao:i m in Adobe only Erika Mann:Apologies Colleagues - I couldn't join earlier! Terri Agnew:Ching is back on audio Glenn McKnight:If you recall at the the fellowship review they had a long list of best practice organizations and their methodologies to evaluate the program Sylvia Cadena:there was a previous list of questions to external experts worth checking to include Ching Chiao:sorry i was on Skype but got cut off. now on mobile network (AT&T) and the audio quality is really bad Nadira AL-Araj:We can hear you well Erika Marika Konings:we identified dates, but we haven't actually invited anyone yet as we've also discussed that some questions might be first answered by email. Terri Agnew:@Ching, would you like the operator to try calling you back to see if we can get a better connection? Sylvia Cadena:agree with Erika Joan Kerr:Looking to experts for fudiciary issues might be good, however, I think speaking to civil society organization to identify needs, support and resources Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute when not speaking Ching Chiao:Hi Terri -- it's okay Ching Chiao:+1 Erika Terri Agnew:next meeting: CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Joan Kerr:Thank you Julf Helsingius:Thank you all! Maureen Hilyard:Thanks and bye everyone Hadia Elminiawi:bye all thanks Nadira AL-Araj:thank you Kavouss Arasteh:We must be careful about engaging expert with a view to limit the amount of cost involved and the justifications to engage expert as well not to promote the appetite of those look to get a job from this process .This is critical .moreover, Conflict of Interest is another issue which must be carefully look at Stephen Deerhake (.as):Bye! Ching Chiao:Thanks veryone!

1 0

Notes and action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
by Marika Konings July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please take particular note of the following action item: Action item #2: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet for charter question #4 are encouraged to complete the survey by 20 July (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4) Action item #3: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #7 by 20 July (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7) You will find the responses received to date in the attached documents. Please make sure that your views are recorded by responding to the survey. Best regards, Marika =================== New gTLD Auction Proceeds Meeting – 13 July 2017 - Notes 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect * Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone when not speaking 2. Welcome / DOI * Productive meeting held at ICANN59 - those not able to participate are encouraged to review the transcript and recording. * Everyone is encouraged to participate in surveys and other requests for input as it will be imperative to be able to meet the timeline as set out in the work plan 3. Review of survey results charter question #4 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4) * To date, 15 responses have been received. * Currently views on question #1 re. timeframe for allocation of funds are equally split between one-off exercise and long lasting mechanism through possible investment. * What return on investment could be obtained - that may determine what timeframe you would be looking at? How much money per year, if the CCWG would want to pursue this approach? This could be a potential question for external experts? Board may also have input on this question based on experience to date. Funds are currently invested with a view of preservation so return is currently pretty small as investments are low risk. * In relation to the duration of projects to be supported, current responses indicate that there is no specific preference for short time or long term projects. Will at some point also need to consider cost of overhead of short term vs. long term projects. Should provide some further info on what is considered short term vs. long term. Short term could be 1 year or less, medium term up to 3 years, long term 5 years and up. * Note that the different questions are interlinked. How money is allocated is linked to the magnitude of projects funded, duration, etc. Decisions on one will likely impact others. * Please consider that CCWG does not have to select one single mechanism. There can be one for short term / smaller amounts and other for long term / large disbursements. * Leadership team to review results and consider how to move forward if there is no clear preference on some of these questions. Action item #1: Staff to reach out Xavier to obtain further input regarding current investment and return. Action item #2: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #4 by 20 July. 4. Review of survey results charter question #7 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7) * Difficult to answer without some further details - what would it entail for ICANN to do this? Would it be a question of 3 people or 20? Those details may determine whether it would be feasible and/or desirable to have ICANN manage this. May also be a question for external experts although some specificity would need to be provided to be able to provide a response. * One off - within ICANN, longer term - external to ICANN? May be dependent on the answer to that question. Setting up a foundation was not excluded when reviewing the AGB. * With regards to community volunteer involvement, need to consider not creating additional bureaucracy, costs as well as factor in possible conflicts of interest. Action item #3: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #7 by 20 July. 5. Review feedback received on charter question #2 survey & next steps (see attached documents) * No further feedback received on the mailing list. A number of updates made based on discussions during ICANN59 as well as one additional response received. * CCWG to determine how to move from this list to preliminary agreement on what the (preliminary) agreed objective for fund allocation should be. * Criteria must be implementable and consistent with ICANN's mission. Consider a possible check-list to see which of the criteria are most consistent with ICANN's mission. * Objectives and criteria are quite different. criteria refers normally (with grants management) to eligibility, forms to fill, licensing, use, copyright, etc. that is a very practical and operational. Objectives are very important as that help applicants to decide if they want to apply or not. * SDGs is a good framework to consider. To broaden the desired impact without broadening the mission (as ICANN's mission is narrow and might change again in the future). * Need to ask not only whether something is within ICANN"s mission, but also rationale. * Following determination / agreement on overall objective(s), CCWG could go back to concrete examples and stress test those against the mission. Action item #4: Staff to work with leadership team to develop survey that would assess support for different objectives as well as assessment of whether it falls within ICANN's mission and why. Share survey for preview with CCWG prior to launch. 6. Questions for external experts – reminder (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg… * CCWG may need to identify at which stage of the process external input will be most helpful. May require further details on scope/objective for it to be a helpful conversation. Maybe focus first on scope/objective related questions to help inform the current stage of deliberations. * May need one-pager to explain status of work so external experts have an understanding of the work of the CCWG, especially with regards to scope. That may also help identify umbrella questions. Action item #4: CCWG encouraged to add questions for external experts to the google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVg… 7. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 27 July at 14.00 UTC) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0