Dear All,

Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC.   

Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements.

The high-level notes included below are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

NOTES / ACTION ITEMS

These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw .

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates

Attendance will be taken from the zoom room.

Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann

Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed

2. Review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report (see attached public comment review templates, which will be used to support the review)

Erika needs to leave the meeting at the top of the hour. Staff will take over during Erika’s short absence.

Welcome back, after the closure of the public comments period.

Serious of template documents, includes the comments and responses to the 4 questions from the public comments. There is a leadership recommendation for each of the comments. Total: 12 comments received. Summary document of the public comment prepared by staff and posted on the public comment page.

Public Comment Question #1

Do you support the CCWG’s recommendation in relation to the preferred mechanism(s)? If no, please provide your rationale for why not.

download the document here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126425480/Public%20Comment%20Question%20%231%20Review%20Template%20upd%204%20Mar%202020.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1583329202691&api=v2


Comment #1

• Suggestion by Erika: add that the letter will not only be sent to the Board, but also to the chartering organizations
• Stephen Deerhake: +1 on leadership recommendation

Comment #2

• Erika is concerned about introducing a new committee. Standing Committee would be something new. 

Judith: evaluation committee for the entire length of the Auction Proceeds? Annual term renewal? 

Erika: add language cautioning against having evaluators serve for the full period and encouraging the use of best practices in determining term length. 

Allan: committee is the wrong term. It is an external group. There should be an opportunity to remove members after periodic review. Labor laws cannot force members to serve for a long period of time

• Erika hesitates concerning the 10 and 20%. Prefers to leave flexibility for the team evaluating the projects. There is no need to have those thresholds.

Judith: would prefer that this is a strong guiding principle. 

Caroline: I also disagree with establishing the limit/threshold on how much projects can request. As part of the evaluation process, it will be evaluated whether a project is proposing a budget that makes sense. I would not adopt this rec.

Allan: different way. Do not give percentages. If the group were to say to put half of a single tranche in a single project, risk failure would be considerable

Sylvia: Proper due diligence reduces the risk if there is a project worthy of a larger budget.


Judith: supports Allan’s proposal

• Allan: concern about the process. Those not in the call should be involved in the discussion too. 
• Leadership to confirm if all points from the discussion are sufficiently covered in the report.

Comment #3

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #4 (RySG)

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #5 (BC)

• In Erika’s view, the feasibility study is either triggered by the board, or by the implementation team

Sarah: BC’s understanding that mechanism A will increase cost for ICANN org. However, the increased cost would be to the auction proceeds process

• Allan: BC suggests building internal resources to choose grant recipients. We made it clear it was an external group, not icann’s role. Empowered Community has oversight of the overall budget, but not on the disbursement of funds.

Erika: we may want to ask Steve DelBianco for further clarification

• Allan: feasibility study might not be the right mechanism. Potential request for information from external vendors. Implies we might come back with an answer that something is not feasible. We might need to clarify the language, nomenclature issue

• ICANN legal to follow up on the role of the EC
• Sam:  role of the EC is limited in the bylaws and there does not appear to be a defined role for the EC regarding the auction proceeds fund allocation. Look at the design to make sure it cannot override decisions related to grants.
• Sylvia: COI - apply under auction proceeds? Auction proceeds support community projects. External mechanisms are looking at ways to keep the independence. Important to highlight. If the community had that power, they could not benefit from the auction proceeds.

Sam: COI issue is an important point to raise. 

• Erika excuses herself, she is attending to a different matter offline at the top of the hour

• Allan: EC is made up of 5 SO/ACs. Unincorporated associations. Grant applicants need to be incorporated into associations. 
• Stephen: agrees with Allan. EC’s only leverage over the grant process, is via the review of the ICANN budgets
• Anne: only power of the EC is regarding the line item budget. The request in the public comments is to clarify that that power is not affected in any way.

• Implementation team and Board to clarify the language regarding the feasibility assessment and how to implement the guidance
• Leadership team to clarify the intent of the comment with the BC
• 3rd agreement (see template)

Comment #6

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #7

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #8

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #9

• No further comments by those attending the CCWG meeting today

Comment #10 &11

• Seems to have been submitted in response to a different public comment period.

Public Comment Question #2

Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as listed in Section 1 above, in response to the public comment forum? If yes, please specify what changes concern you and why?

Comment #1

• Support in chat of the leadership recommendation

Comment #2

• Carolina: While I agree with sylvia’s estimated max overhead, I think this was a complicated debate which we should not revisit
• Allan: there is no lack of clarity. If there is a legal incorporation, it is eligible to apply.

No need to revisit

• Anne: agrees with Allan, no prohibition against qualified SO/ACs applying for grants.
• Can consensus be reached, if the topic is re-opened?

Allan: either we make a recommendation, or we ask the board to choose. Clarity is needed.

Emily: Carolina and Stephen agree. 

Carolina:  believe that on the issues the CCWG does not reach consensus, the implementation team/process will have to have to do comprehensive review and put language together. I think the text was clear that there was no prohibition.

• To be revisited as a recommendation. Erika suggests not to be too precise. Perhaps specify who cannot participate. Co-chairs to listen to recording and follow up on the mailing list

Comment #3

• Erika: Instead of having a negative formulation (“must not have”), have a more general formulation. 
• Anne: language by Erika would cover the issue about no access to those mechanisms for grants that are (not) approved.
• Allan: not sure whether the proposed words have the same meaning
• ICANN legal:  it will be important to flag in the CCWG’s recommendation that the Bylaws need to be changed to reflect that the IRP/Reconsideration is not to be used in this regard

3. AOB

a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached)

Draft timeline being displayed in the zoom room. Previously circulated via email.

Expected: 3 more meeting to go over public comments

Mid-April: publish final report

Survey by CCWG members to assess support for recommendations

May: finalise report for submission to chartering organisations

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor 

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