- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

at large has responded with more than 50 emails with comments on those question posted from the last meeting
by Vanda Scartezini May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

I have translated to Spanish for the facility of my region and looks like it works well in my region and also in other regions. The line of debate is a large one and will share with staff what is the best to do. Kind regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help Dear colleagues ( Español abajo) Auction Proceed CCWG is the group dealing with the process that shall be follow for the financial resources from new gTLDs auctions as you remember. We are in the phase of Auction Proceeds CCWG where we need to focus on to relevant points that your ideas will be very welcome. See below the question and if you can comment I appreciate. We are organizing a framework for this work, · As part of this framework, what will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN’s mission while at the same time recognizing the diversity of communities that ICANN serves? This should include recommendations on how to assess whether the proposed use is aligned with ICANN’s Mission. Furthermore consideration is expected to be given to what safeguards, if any, need to be in place. · What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds? E.g. The timeframe for the operation of this new mechanism may provide the opportunity for long term support, or for funding to be released in tranches linked to milestone achievements, single or multiple disbursements. Please feel free to enter in contact for any questions, comments etc. Appreciate Estimados colegas El grupo de procedimientos trabajando para definir cómo deben ser utilizados los recursos financieros advenidos de las subastas de new gTLDs, y estamos trabajando en la construcción de esta moldura. • Como parte de este marco, ¿cuáles serán las limitaciones de la asignación de fondos, teniendo en cuenta que los fondos deben ser utilizados en consonancia con la misión de ICANN y al mismo tiempo reconocer la diversidad de comunidades que ICANN sirve? Esto debería incluir recomendaciones sobre cómo evaluar si el uso propuesto está alineado con la Misión de ICANN. Además, se espera que se preste atención a las medidas de salvaguardia que deben aplicarse, en su caso. • ¿Qué aspectos deberían considerarse para definir un calendario, si existe alguno, para que el mecanismo de asignación de fondos funcione, así como los desembolsos de fondos? P.ej. El calendario para el funcionamiento de este nuevo mecanismo puede brindar la oportunidad de un apoyo a largo plazo, o de que la financiación se libere en tramos relacionados con logros de hitos, desembolsos únicos o múltiples. Por favor siéntanse libres para hacer comentarios o preguntas. Agradezco su participación. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting on Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed agenda - CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC 1. Start of meeting / Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI Updates 3. Status of response to ICANN Board 4. Distribution of work plan and proposed approach for dealing with charter questions 5. Initial run through of charter question 11 (see attached template) 6. Initial run through of charter question 2 (see attached template) 7. Initial run through of charter question 4, if time allows (see attached template) 8. Share plans for ICANN59 and confirm next meeting – Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

6 9

FW: Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-11may17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5ovtulb0ei/<https://participate.icann.org/p5ovtulb0ei/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c266cd7a836c97b4…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1QLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Bisland ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 11 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday 11 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Hello from Buenos Aires! Ching Chiao:Hello Olga Ching Chiao:Hi everyone Julf Helsingius:Greetings from RIPE74 in Budapest Dietmar Stefitz:Hi from vaelncia/Spain! hadia Elminiawi:heloo all Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Hi Ching hi Marika we heare you very well Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:there is echo Marc Gauw:Hallo from sunny Amsterdam Manal Ismail:Hello everyone :) !! Asha Hemrajani 2:Hello all Vanda Scartezini:hi all, judith hellerstein:HI All Alberto Soto:Hello everyone! Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Thanks Marika very useful Nadira AlAraj:Hello all Carolina Caeiro:can you hear me? Marika Konings:Carolina, you may need to activate your microphone? Marika Konings:Or are you connected by telephone? Manal Ismail:no we can't Marika Konings:Please click the phone symbol at the top of the AC pod. Marika Konings:or let us know if you need a dial-out Carolina Caeiro:thanks! Marika Konings:As noted, the updated DOI has already been uploaded on the wiki page (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… ) Marc Gauw 2:Perfect letter, compliments ! Vanda Scartezini:very good indeed Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Ok with the letter hadia Elminiawi:+1 to the letter Julf Helsingius:+1 judith hellerstein:Are we having a face to face in Jo-burg Nadira AlAraj:Is there possibility to do concurrent work on some of these questions Maureen Hilyard:FDirect outreach to the chartering organisations would be a good idea Vanda Scartezini:yes, will do certainly. Marika Konings:@Nadira - the templates for each of the charter questions are posted on the wiki Marika Konings:see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Marika Konings:All are encouraged to provide input either on the templates or the google doc as that may facilitate speeding up deliberations? Nadira AlAraj:Yes @Marika, but maybe we have to give it more review John Levine:Sorry I was late, conflicting commitments Ching Chiao:Hi Erika Ching Chiao:good to have you joining us :) Joke Braeken:When not speaking, could you please mute your phone lines? Thank you Carolina Caeiro:Marika, are we to propose to the board a review mechanism? I mean, it seems the general agreement is that there should be one. judith hellerstein:HI Erika. Good that you joined, but can you mute your mike please. Thank you Vanda Scartezini: i believe for the phase we are now, looks ok for me. Erika Mann:Hi Ching! Thanks for running the show. I'm still cut off electricity. While working on the street they cut by mistake the line. I'm now in a restaurant, found one that still has electricity. Can't talk though but will listen. Marika Konings:@Carolina - yes, this question specifically asks if there should be a review mechanism, and it would be within the CCWG's remits to identify the proposed criteria for such a review mechanism. Manal Ismail:Thanks Erika for taking the trouble to join !! Marika Konings:Glad you found electricity Erika :-) Carolina Caeiro:@marika. Thanks! Vanda Scartezini:welcome Erika Erika Mann:Hi colleagues! I have my mike muted. Erika Mann:@Marika - yes, I found electricity two blocks away. Until then everythings is cut off. Erika Mann:@Vanda - hi! Ching Chiao:Good to know that you're settled Erika :) Carolina Caeiro:I think once the mechanism is selected, we should brainstorm possible scenarios which would trigger a review mechanism and based on that, propose alternatives for the review Carolina Caeiro:yes! Nadira AlAraj:+1 carolina Erika Mann:Agree with you Carolina ... that's the typical process in such kind of funding environments. Typically one needs to review once a year (sometimes each second year) the review process. Manal Ismail:+1 Carolina .. Alan Greenberg:Some of the triggers are pretty clear. Time, $ dispersed and red flags from project reviews or audits. Erika Mann:Alan +1 Manal Ismail:Agree .. It's a combimation .. some may be clear now and some may depend on the mechanism sleected .. hadia Elminiawi:Alan +1 Erika Mann:Plus we might experience some slow take off because of the quite narrow definition of the mission statement which is guiding our work as well Erika Mann:... and this will impact at least the first review process ... hadia Elminiawi:we might end up with more than one funding mechanism, however the main triggers as Alan mentioned are well known Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Dear all I must leave the call to chair other ICANN conference call, apologies I will follow up from notes and recordings Marika Konings:I will add the notes from today's meeting to this template Manal Ismail:Thanks Marika !! hadia Elminiawi:I believe a good start would be to define an objective/objectives to the funding Alan Greenberg:Is magnitude of grants (min and max to normally be considered acceptable) part of this Charter question or is it explicitly in another? Vanda Scartezini:good resumen Marika. Marika Konings:@Alan - charter question 4 may also be a place for that discussion? 4. What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operateas well as the disbursements of funds? E.g. The timeframe for the operation of this new mechanism may provide theopportunity for long term support, or for funding to be released in tranches linked to milestone achievements, singleor multiple disbursements. Maureen Hilyard:@Asha about connecting an application with ICANN's mission is already part of the CROP programme in At-Large and is very relevant Nadira AlAraj:Yes Alan Greenberg:Small grants may not be a problem, but there would have to be reallt streamlined process for processing them. Asha Hemrajani 2:@Maureen good to know Asha Hemrajani 2:@alan not suggesting that it would be a problem but it is a good question that you raised Dietmar Stefitz:I am sorry, I ahve to leave now. Asha Hemrajani 2:The key point I wanted to raise was that it would be good if proposals could include a statement showing relationship with mission. Asha Hemrajani 2:*proposals/requests for funding Vanda Scartezini:lmost relevant is to define the objetives we have as Asha said. small or large is not the main issue here iMO Erika Mann:Since so many mention how important it is to define the objectives, maybe we should spend some time thinking about this ... not sure if our current chartering questions are already looking into this @Marika??? Vanda Scartezini:already sent question to at large and translated to spanish Erika Mann:Thank you Ching! Asha Hemrajani 2:Yes agree with Erika. Worthwhile to spend time to think about objectives of the funding Vanda Scartezini:+1 Erika. Erika Mann:Thank you Marika! Nadira AlAraj:I think the funds objective has to fall with ICANN mission Erika Mann:Nadira, indeed but there might still be a need to define objectives more clearly Nadira AlAraj:Yes to identify and not to define Vanda Scartezini:some objectives IMO - promote knowledge of ICANN / enlarge DNS industry reaching less developed markets / improve technical knowledge..... Asha Hemrajani 2:+1 Erika and Nadira Stephanie Perrin:I agree that defining the objectives is very important, we will be casting about if we attempt to answer the questions without it. On the other hand, if we are uncertain in our own minds on the objectives, going through the Charter questions will help us outline our objectives. Sometimes we identify what we don't want faster than what we do, and that process will help us do that. John Levine:Agree with Alan, we cannot predict where the best propsals will come from. Vanda Scartezini:we can adjusting as we go further Asha Hemrajani 2:agree Stephanie - I can understand the fear of confining ourselves too much, but thinking about objectives will help shape the conversation and work going forward Marika Konings:@Stephanie - maybe the survey could ask about objectives but also what shouldn't be the objective? Stephanie Perrin:Yes Marika, that might help hadia Elminiawi:+1 Vanda, adjust as we go forward Erika Mann:Good point raised by Alan. Maybe instead of defining/identifying objectives, we might want to run few scenarios to understand what we would consider that would be covered by the mission and what not. Indeed we should support mission driven innnovation processes. Marika Konings:@Erika - wouldn't that be in addition? Once you have objectives, you could run a couple of scenarios to see whether those would be in line with objectives or not, and if not, whether objectives would need to be adjusted if there is broad agreement that a specific scenario should be considered within scope. hadia Elminiawi:+1 Marika Erika Mann:@Marika - both is possible. Big funs typically have very few objectives but allow these objectives to be modified by scenarios and/or applications Asha Hemrajani 2:It would be good to start the conversation going on the objectives first even if there will be just a few Stephanie Perrin:It is important, I think, to remember that small projects will have much more modest goals that large ones. so scope and size may differentiate the objectives ...this process will be iterative. In my experience small projects can have really important multiplier effects; they allow organizations to trial a project, educate on an existing project, do necessary research on issues, etc. Alan Greenberg:Objective 1: Do good things, and things that might not get done if we weren't here. Alan Greenberg:We are 12 minutes to end. Let's wrap up with this one and review next meeting plans and ICANN59 Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Alan judith hellerstein:I was just going to say we had 5 minutes left but you already noticed. Asha Hemrajani 2:Marika, please repeat the date again in the chat. Thanks. judith hellerstein:I believe she said june 27 Asha Hemrajani 2:Thanks Marika Konings:For now it is firm on the schedule: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ischeduler.icann.org&d… Marc Gauw 2:Please note that next meeting (25 May), it will be Accension Day (so holiday) in many countries Carolina Caeiro:Thanks everyone! Vanda Scartezini:thank you all. see you next meeting. hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all judith hellerstein:No holiday in the US Julf Helsingius:thanks everybody! Nadira AlAraj:Will be good, will be waiting for next agenda andcJohannesburg agenda as well Marc Gauw 2:bye ! Joke Braeken:thank you, bye Victor Zhang:bye thanks Ching Chiao:Thank you all! Manal Ismail:Thank you all .. Peter Vergote:Txs and bye! Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Ching bye all Asha Hemrajani:Thank you all. 謝謝 Ching

1 0

Notes CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting
by Marika Konings May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes from today’s CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 11 May 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Start of meeting / Roll Call · Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect · Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and to state your name when speaking for transcription purposes 2. Welcome – DOI Updates · Erika Mann may not join due to electricity issues · Remember to update your DOI and communicate any changes to the mailing list · In relation to question 6, important to communicate information to the best of your knowledge, recognising that changes could occur at a later point in time. · Reminder - All DOIs can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw 3.Status of response to ICANN Board · Response ready to be sent · Should cover all issues raised by CCWG Action item #1: Leadership team to send response to ICANN Board 4. Distribution of work plan and proposed approach for dealing with charter questions · No further input received on the work plan / proposed approach · Leadership team would like to propose to communicate the work plan and proposed approach to chartering organizations to set expectations · Work plan will be kept up to date as work progresses. End of year deadline is not a hard deadline - CCWG can adjust as needed, either with regards to deadline or speed with which deliberations are conducted. Action item #2: Leadership team to draft a cover note to be used by members for sharing work plan and proposed approach for dealing with the charter questions. Action item #3: following finalisation of cover note, CO appointed members to communicate cover note and work plan & proposed approach to chartering organisations 5. Initial run through of charter question 11 · See template shared · Note that a briefing on audit requirements is being planned · Overall there appears to be support for having a review mechanism, with several noting the importance of community involvement in any such review. Specific criteria may need to be further defined and may differ depending on which aspects are being reviewed (e.g. overall framework and/or scope vs. specific projects). · Once the mechanism is selected, CCWG should brainstorm possible scenarios which would trigger a review mechanism and based on that, propose alternatives for the review · Add a sub-question to already start brainstorming on options: what review mechanisms should be put in place / what are the criteria for any kind of review mechanism / what possible scenarios should trigger a review (for example, Time, $ dispersed and red flags from project reviews or audits)? · Focus should be on review of overall mechanism, not individual projects (that would be subject to a separate review mechanism) Action item #4: Staff to update template in line with CCWG input 6. Initial run through of charter question 2 (see attached template) · See template shared · What would be the best way to tackle this specific charter question? Some have suggested started with a list of criteria. · Need to consider magnitude of grants - how big or small limits? Small grants could increase overall overhead so might be less desirable? Not necessarily - there are examples in which this is not an issue (for example .NL foundation). This topic may also get discussed as part of charter question #4. · Defining objectives for funding would be a good starting point. Relation between proposed uses of funds and ICANN's mission is important - for example, relationship could be required to be demonstrated as part of fund applications. Objectives shouldn't limit / constrain innovative ideas / projects. Shouldn't be limited to what ICANN currently already does. · Consider setting up a survey that would ask CCWG to identify objectives for fund allocation, factoring in ICANN's mission and legal/fiduciary constraints. Could also identify what shouldn't be the objective. · Also consider running a few scenarios to understand what the CCWG would be considered covered by the mission and what not. Approach could be few objectives but allow these objectives to be modified/complemented by specific scenarios and/or applications. Action item #5: Staff to develop survey to facilitate input to this charter question. 7. Initial run through of charter question 4, if time allows · See template shared · Template already reflects some of the discussion that took place in relation to this topic on the mailing list. · Bring this back to the next meeting for further review and input. 8. Share plans for ICANN59 and confirm next meeting – Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC · CCWG has been tentatively scheduled as part of the GNSO schedule for Tuesday 27 June from 13.30 - 15.00 local time. · Next meeting scheduled for Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Updated templates posted for review & link to expertise information
by Marika Konings May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear all, The updated templates for charter question 5 and 7, per the discussion during last week’s meeting, have now been posted on the wiki for your review: https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw. Note that we’ve also created a page that includes the relevant links to the work that has been undertaken to date to identify CCWG member/participant expertise as well as external expertise, see https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw. As always, you are encouraged to share any comments and/or edits you have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

5 5

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] RE: For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board
by Marika Konings May 5, 2017

May 5, 2017

Thanks, Marie-Noémie for your input. The leadership team reviewed your comments but noted that some of these appeared duplicative (possibility to (potentially)) and/or changed the meaning of what the CCWG originally agreed (may receive vs. will receive) and as such opted not to make these changes. As no further comments were received, the leadership team will go ahead and submit the CCWG response as circulated on 27 April to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika From: "marienoemie.marques(a)orange.com" <marienoemie.marques(a)orange.com> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 14:35 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board Dear all, First of all, may I apologize for not participating to the last conf call (I was traveling) … I would like to make two comments / proposals and let you see to what extent it suits you all. My kindest regards, 1) The Memo of June 2016 on Legal and Financial Considerations for Inclusion in Charter specifies (see 5. Conflict of Interest considerations): “Similarly, a commitment from those who participated in the designing of the process to refrain from applying for an award could be a limitation that the CCWG imposes on its membership. “ This “recommendation / commitment possibility” would lead me to withdraw my participation from the CCWG, as I would not like to be responsible for an potential loss of opportunity for my company. if such a commitment is introduced – I would rather choose to be an observer and not anymore a participant. This point needs therefore to be clarified. For this reason, I believe that the following should not be more affirmative, creating 2 sentences for the sake of readibility: ‘What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?’ will be part of the CCWG deliberations. Especially the board suggestion that there should be a clear separation of those deciding general direction and those receiving funds will receive further clarification. The CCWG is currently operating on the basis that as long as CCWG members / participants declare their intention or possibility to (potentially) apply for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds once the proposed mechanism has been approved by the ICANN Board, this provides for sufficient transparency and accountability in this stage of the process, as the decisions for final funding allocation will not be taken by this CCWG but by the mechanism defined. Such mechanism will be subject to a different conflict of interest, appropriate for its implementation. 2) Otherwise the letter seems just fine to me. May I suggest one sentence for completing the paragraph on overhead: “Concerning the suggested nominal goal for the overhead is no more than 5% by the ICANN Board, the CCWG will definitely consider this input when it considers the relevant charter questions as well as the elements the Board has suggested the proposed mechanism and/or process should include. Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended as a result of the CCWG deliberations and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board.” Should this occur, the CCWG will accordingly / expeditiously inform the ICANN Board. [would this precision be useful / relevant / opportune ?] Marie-Noémie De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Marika Konings Envoyé : jeudi 27 avril 2017 19:51 À : ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board Dear All, Please find attached for final review the proposed response to the ICANN Board. Note that I’ve accepted all previous edits so you will only see in redline the changes as a result of today’s discussion. You are requested to provide any further comments and/or edits by Thursday 4 May at the latest. Following that, the leadership team will go ahead and submit this letter to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Reminder - review work plan and proposed approach
by Marika Konings May 4, 2017

May 4, 2017

Dear All, As a reminder, you are encouraged to review the proposed work plan as well as the approach for dealing with the charter questions as presented during the last meeting (see attached) and provide any feedback you may have in advance of next week’s meeting. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

For final review - CCWG response to ICANN Board
by Marika Konings April 28, 2017

April 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find attached for final review the proposed response to the ICANN Board. Note that I’ve accepted all previous edits so you will only see in redline the changes as a result of today’s discussion. You are requested to provide any further comments and/or edits by Thursday 4 May at the latest. Following that, the leadership team will go ahead and submit this letter to the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-27apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5274mpyls7/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/atLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 27 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group call on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Erika Mann:Hi team! Can we test audio quickly? Alan Greenberg:We can play the new game of chance in ICANN. Will we have Adobe Connect sound on this meeting? Alan Greenberg:Yes,. AC audio is fine here. Alan Greenberg:At least outgoing. Alan Greenberg:We have been having a lot of problems in recent days. Alan Greenberg:Not on bridge yet. Erika Mann:I can hear you well Alan! Erika Mann:Let's check if you can hear me! Erika Mann:Hi Ching! Ching Chiao:Hi Erika how are you ? Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Hello all Asha Hemrajani:Good evening from Singapore Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Good morning from Argentina :) Erika Mann:Hello All! Joke Braeken:Hi Ching and Erika, the ccnso council will have to decide to launch a call for volunteers Ching Chiao:Hi Asha, Olga -- good to have you Nadira ALARAJ:Hello All Ching Chiao:Hi Joke -- I was just chatting this with Erika. Thanks for bringing this up! Joke Braeken:welcome, thanks for raising it Ching Asha Hemrajani:你好 Ching! Asha Hemrajani:Joke, that is good to hear Vanda Scartezini:hi all Ching Chiao:您好 Asha 女士 :) Hadia Elminiawi:hello all Nadira ALARAJ:can we the view the document in the final form. Hadia Elminiawi:+1 to the text proposed Marika Konings:The proposed modification would be: Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that an the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board. Jon Nevett:That's better than opining what is standard elliot noss:I am strongly in favour of 1% Nadira ALARAJ:Thanks Marika, it sound felixible. elliot noss:$1.4m is TONS at an expense level to give away money elliot noss:but I am ok with the language Jon Nevett:right -- might vary higher or lower -- we shouldn't mention 10% as standard Erika Mann:Thank you Elliot! Vanda Scartezini:i believe to use the wording of Marika but suggest 10% as ALan is suggesting - we leave open enough but state a low limit Jon Nevett:marika's language captures the flexibility very well. Marika Konings:The language seems to accomodate those that may prefer a higher or a lower number by recognising that it is something that will need further consideration but can only informed by further details on the mechanism that is preferred. Marika Konings:seems = aims Erika Mann:I think so too Jon! Nadira ALARAJ:@Marika, the ideas of putting an exact figure is challenging without having any expecation or prediction of what type of project it will be funded and for how long as it was mentioned here Alan Greenberg:I was NOT proposing 20%. I mentioned it to make sure the Board did NOT think we were in that ballpark. Stephanie Perrin:Agree with Elliot, but suggested language does seem to work and register range of views. Manal Ismail:I'm fine with Marika's language too .. Hadia Elminiawi:I meant +1 to the proposed modification Maureen Hilyard:@Stephanie +1 Jon Nevett:Fund is $233M right now and there still are strings to be resolved Jon Nevett:5% is over $11M elliot noss:ok. my 1% is now = $2.33m! Erika Mann:No, we can't work with amount above the 100 Mio Erika Mann:... at least not for right now ... Jon Nevett:just saying what the current fund is Erika Mann:Ching!!! Erika Mann:Ching where are you??? Asha Hemrajani:@Vanda I am not sure if 10% could be considered a "low" limit Marika Konings:You can also find the proposed language on the right hand side in the notes Marika Konings:@Manal - would adding 'as a result of the CCWG deliberations' address your comment? Marika Konings:see on the right hand side in brackets where it would fit Manal Ismail:I'm trying to see whether adding something along the following lines may be useful "At the end, this remains to be determined by the CCWG deliberations." Vanda Scartezini:Ashaa, you may be right, in principle I agree with 5% in the emails exchanged but I can understand ALAN points since ädminsitrative issues" can be largelly understandings - Marika is good bbut it is relevant to written p point is what will be read in the future Brad Verd (RSSAC):I keep hearing the sentiment of a goal to minimize the costs to disperse funds. Can we add something to the proposed language that conveys that sentiment and is audited annually to try to keep the expenses in check. Stephanie Perrin:I understand the need to keep this issue at a high level, but to me the operative point is what any administration funds are spent on...there is no fund raising, but there needs to be good review, metrics and other accountability mechanisms in place for funded projects. Vanda Scartezini:agree we shall not institucionalize any foundation but admistrative can be widely understood Vanda Scartezini:good idea Erika. Asha Hemrajani:Brad & Stephanie +1 Alan Greenberg:COnstraining the project and not institutionalizing may be important considerations. But using the money WELL is at the top of the priority pile in my mind. Nadira ALARAJ:This time sound better, thank you Marika Jon Nevett:looks good Dietmar Stefitz:I do not agree in a compelte distribution and would opt for a Foundation which will remain Vanda Scartezini: agree with Asha Alan Greenberg:We are spending FAR too much time on this. Peter Vergote (ccNSO):yes Maureen Hilyard:yes Vanda Scartezini:yes Nadira ALARAJ:+1 for a week Manal Ismail:yes.. Nadira ALARAJ:no Dietmar Stefitz:yes Stephanie Perrin:The fact that we are spending time on it demonstrates what a hot button issue it is and if we remember this it will help us keep focus on economical but efficient options. Asha Hemrajani:well put Stephanie Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):I believe we need to look into the creation of a foundation where principal funds are not spent and, instead, invested. The growth is then distributed. This is a unique opportunity for this community and it should maximized for posterity and for the good of the Internet. Julf Helsingius:Apologies for joining this late, my flight was delayed Ching Chiao:I think the fundamental answer to Q5 is Xavier / Sam's note on CoI Ching Chiao:I think that's a great base document and guideline Erika Mann:Tripti - yes, that's an idea as well. We will have to start talking about various models Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):Thank you Erika. Erika Mann:Welcome Julf! We will try to finish at 5 PM, to allow members /participants to join another call Vanda Scartezini:@Tripti - we may be out of institucionalize a foundation, the cost of such sttructure in US is too high Julf Helsingius:Thanks, Erika! Erika Mann:Tripti, All - feel free to send'fund' ideas/expert names etc to staff!/ Marika Konings:With regards to the current list of experts identified, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… and feel free to add! elliot noss:again, I was talking about it as a POSSIBILITY, not a determined outcome Vanda Scartezini:agree with ALAN Stephanie Perrin:Agree with Elliot. Would add that if we construct the frame properly, and develop very strong criteria for COI, then the review of the proposals is quite do-able. As to Alan's concern about consistency, I am not convinced that outsourcing necessarily gives consistency either. Marika Konings:Correct Erika - this is input provided by individual WG members / participants Asha Hemrajani:Understood Erika...just wanted to make it clear that the Board has no preference at this point. Tripti Sinha (RSSAC):I need to drop off now. Agree with Erika's proposed next steps. Stephanie Perrin:The range of project size and goals is a very important factor in determining administration models in my view. Nadira ALARAJ:@Marika, regarding the list of experts, it doesn't include the identified by the survey that was criuclated to the CCWG members. Ching Chiao:Based on legal and fidiciary constraint, ICANN can not avoid the responsibility of overseeing the proposals. Can ICANN outsource this function to a outside entity? Marika Konings:correct, these are external experts. I'll make sure to get those survey results posted and linked in this document so it is all in one place. Nadira ALARAJ:Thanks Marika for you efforts in keeping up with all of our demands ;) Marika Konings:My pleasure :-) Vanda Scartezini:great job Marika, indeed Alan Greenberg:@Ching, we can outsource what we want. But have to take responsibility for the quality of the resultant work. Alan Greenberg:We are past the hour. Vanda Scartezini:other call already started Asha Hemrajani:Will have to sign off now. Thank you all. Vanda Scartezini:thanks Jon Nevett:Thanks! Hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all Nadira ALARAJ:Thank you akk elliot noss:thanks everyone. bye Dietmar Stefitz:Thnaks to all of you! Manal Ismail:Thanks .. Bye .. Hadia Elminiawi:bye Joke Braeken:Thank you, bye Erika Mann:Thank you All! Peter Vergote (ccNSO):Bye all Maureen Hilyard:Thank you Erika, Marika and the team Erika Mann:Thank you Maureen!

1 0

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG - 27 April 2017 1. Start of meeting – roll call · Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect · Reminder, please state name for transcription purposes and keep your microphones on mute when not speaking 2. Welcome & updates to DOIs · Aim to keep call to 60 minutes if possible · Reminder, please share any updates to your DOI 3. Response to ICANN Board letter · Numerous comments received on the mailing list, especially with regards to % to be spent on overhead · Need to be careful with concrete numbers as it is not clear yet what mechanism would be chosen and what the implications would be with regards to overhead. · Proposed modification: Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended [as a result of the CCWG deliberations] and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board. · Board does have understanding that % may vary - critical message is that impact of choices on costs should be factored in so that bulk is not spent on administration/overhead. Action item #1: Staff to circulate letter with updated language for CCWG final review (1 week review time) Action item #2: CCWG Leadership to submit letter to ICANN Board following CCWG final review 4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan · See updated approach and work plan circulated · CCWG requested to review these documents and provide input on both steps as well as timing · Timeline for delivery of Initial Report is an artificial deadline - up to CCWG to decide if/when to adjust based on progress made. Action item #3: Staff to circulate documents (updated graphic and updated work plan) Action item #4: CCWG to review updated approach for dealing with charter questions and updated work plan 5. Initial run through of charter question 5 · See template for charter question 5 circulated · Further details may be needed on the selection committees mentioned - may be worth reviewing other responses from same person as it may be further detailed in response to other questions. · Important to determine order in which questions are to be dealt with 6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows · See template for charter question 7 circulated · Confusion over the use of ICANN - ICANN staff, ICANN community? Most of the ccTLDs use community volunteers. Should be contemplated. One of the possible outcomes is volunteers from the ICANN community - add this to the template. · Adherence to mission will likely have two implications: will limit # of proposals that would get through first gate, would preclude outside group. · If you use volunteers, there may be an issue of consistency. # of applications is not clear yet, may depend on criteria that are set (e.g. minimum / max. amount to be funded). · Outsourcing or inhouse - may need further consideration once it is clear what the focus / objective of fund allocation will be. · Need to look into the creation of a foundation where principal funds are not spent and, instead, invested. The growth is then distributed. This is a unique opportunity for this community and it should maximized for posterity and for the good of the Internet. · Consider deleting first response as question may not have been clear to person that responded. Action item #5: Staff to update template with input provided during this meeting and circulate it to CCWG for review & input 7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC · Review charter question 7 again in order to determine whether there is a certain hierarchy. 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