Dear All,

Please find below the notes & action items from today’s meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes - CCWG AP Meeting – 5 October 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.

1. Roll Call

• Attendance will be taken from AC room
• Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep your phones and microphones on mute when not speaking

2. Welcome / DOI

• Call today chaired by Ching as Erika is travelling
• Please remember to keep your DOI and SOIs up to date

3. Presentation from ICANN Finance & Legal on the different options that have been discussed in relation to charter question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work; externally - working with already existing entities)

• See slides distributed prior to the meeting.
• Hold questions until the end as some may be answered throughout the presentation.
• Recall that a survey was conducted on this question but responses did not provide a clear path forward. As a result, this presentation was requested to help inform the CCWG deliberations.
• Question #7: different options on ICANN's role in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process.
• Presentation provides overview of ICANN's resource impact under different scenarios: Internal to ICANN (new dept? new foundation?), Hybrid - ICANN and Outsourced (each distribute), fully outsourced - with oversight, fully outsourced - with no oversight.
• Guiding principles across scenarios: ensuring mission is respected, ensuring fiduciary responsibility of ICANN Board and officers, ability to hold both distributor of funds and fund recipients accountable to ICANN community.
• Scenarios - resource impact: where are resources used across the disbursement process? Is it different if it is internal to ICANN or external or a mix? Across all three first scenarios, ICANN would need to devote resources.
• Comments & questions:
• "Oversight" in option 2 or 3 should not mean '"Service Contract". That would bring many 501c-look-a-like (charity-) organisations in trouble and as such become disqualified to take a role in this process.
• When you say ICANN resources to support those 4 lines, you mean a portion of the auction proceeds, or do you mean that ICANN is committed to devote resources for those key elements? Cost incurred by ICANN but borne by auction proceeds? Yes, correct, when reference is made to costs pertaining to the disbursement process, these would need to be borne and covered by the auction proceeds. Similar to how this was managed for the new gTLD program - costs of ICANN resources is carved out of ICANN's operations and budget and allocated to the new gTLD application program and covered by the applicant fees. Same approach would be taken here - evaluate % of resources dedicated to auction proceeds which would then be covered by auction proceeds funds. Cost would not be double counted.
• Assumption that column four is there not because it is being advocated but to demonstrate that it is not viable? Yes, correct.
• Consider having 5 rows instead of 4 as one part is currently missing namely review of technical outcomes of projects (ongoing monitoring & review of funded projects, outcomes). This would entail significant resources / expertise. This is currently covered in row 3 - disbursement process and monitoring.
• In scenario 2 and 3, ICANN would need to involve external resources to facilitate oversight (e.g. accounting, audit). Mechanisms of oversight would entail a certain number of work that would likely duplicate the work of the provider. May need clearer descriptions to fully understand.
• There's really not enough information available at this time to identify what arrangements/agreements would have to be in place between ICANN and an external distributor of funds.
• What mechanisms would exist for recourse if following assessment / monitoring that funds were disbursed not meeting the original intent and not meeting the purposes? Ongoing monitoring may help in that regard. 
• Involvement of ICANN in different options is likely different.
• Need to be careful to not go into an option that involves heavy spending. Most funds should go into projects not administration. Scenario 2 and 3 - if there is a fundamental difference between those two options in set up costs?
• Need to account for the timing issue. By introducing intermediaries we may be increasing the risk of something going bad or out of scope.
• Would outsourcing increase the risk of affecting ICANN's tax status if things go bad? Need to ensure continued oversight to minimize this risk. Grant agreements would also cover this.
• There is nothing that supports the idea that outsourcing will be more expensive. Outsourcing with an experienced organization may cost less in the long run and be more transparent.
• Clarity of roles between ICANN and potential partners would reduce likelihood of overlap and duplication of costs.
• In scenario 1 or 3 it may be easier as main bulk of work takes place by one player (ICANN or third party), while in scenario 2 it would be a mix. As WG narrows down and more clearly defines purposes and directions it will become easier to produce estimates, models and structures that will help qualify the costs.

4. Continue deliberation on charter question #7 - Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose?

• CCWG may have better understanding now of the different scenarios.
• Not rushing for any kind of decision at this point. Objective is to be able to identify preferred option to allow for further exploration of charter questions to determine whether or not that model turns out to be suitable or not
• Consider running another survey asking the CCWG to rank the three options to determine whether or not there is a clear preference for a certain option. As noted, this is not a final choice, it is merely to see if it is possible to make a determination to which option to focus on in the next steps of the deliberations.
• Need more information before launching the survey - hold on for now and discuss further at the next meeting.

5. Update on open and interoperable Internet definition by small drafting team

• DT is getting close and is expected to provide an update on the latest draft shortly.

6. Confirmation of CCWG meetings at ICANN60 (Thursday 2 November from 8.45 – 10.15 and 13.30 – 15.00)

Action item #1: CCWG members and participants to respond to the doodle poll to indicate availability for this meeting (see https://participate.icann.org/newgtlds-auction)

7. Confirmation of next steps & next meeting (Thursday 19 October at 14.00 UTC)

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.