In relation to action item 2, please find here the updated version of the project examples for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHJneNt5epskQoGRjnmonM-vW8GyTz_SwBCaftNEgr0/edit?usp=sharing. Note that I’ve accepted all proposed edits and made one additional one (in redline) in response to a suggestion. Please review and provide any further feedback you may have by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC at the latest. To review the original comments and suggestions, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE/edit.

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

Dear All,

 

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Please take specific note of the following action items:

 

Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide input/feedback at the latest by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit [docs.google.com]

 

Action item #4: Staff to reopen survey to allow for additional responses. Deadline: Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC. (Completed: the survey can be accessed here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Ccwgapstrawpoll [surveymonkey.com] – note, those that have already completed the survey do not need to do so again).

 

Action item #5: CCWG members and participants to respond to survey, if they have not done so yet. Staff to send a reminder.

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

==============================

 

New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC

 

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.

 

Roll Call

·         Roll call will be taken from Webex

·         Please remember to mute your microphone to avoid background noise and state your name for transcription purposes

  

Preamble

·         See latest version shared on the mailing list just prior to the meeting.

·         CCWG discussed previously whether to further work on it based on the board input or whether to drop it. Agreed to undertake some further work to see if it would be possible to modify it to address the Board input received and get it into a state to include it in the Initial Report for community consideration.

·         Only a small number of CCWG members/participants provided input - important that everyone now has a look at it and see if you are comfortable with the updates as made, for inclusion in the Initial Report.

 

Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version of preamble and provide input/feedback at the latest by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit [docs.google.com]

 

Project Examples

·         Further comments & edits provided through google doc. Staff to produce a consolidated version aiming to address all comments / edits.

·         CCWG should not use specific examples as that would be biasing readers - examples need to be general (e.g. a respectable entity instead of the name of an organization)

 

Action item #2: Staff to produce a consolidated version for CCWG review

Action item #3: CCWG to review consolidated version once circulated by staff. Input to be provided by Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC at the latest.

 

Survey results

• See summary (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-DFSFDH79L/ [surveymonkey.com]) and consolidated version shared on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
• As a reminder, the straw poll survey was set up to be able to make an assessment whether certain mechanism(s) would score higher against the criteria outlined by the CCWG than others in order to make a determination which mechanism(s) should be considered in further detail in the next phase of work. Unfortunately response levels were fairly low: only 39% of members and 17% of participants responded.
• Did members consult with their appointing organizations? ALAC members did, although it was difficult to summarize the conversations to date.
• Would it be possible to see the responses based on just members input - does that change the ranking?
• Co-chairs did not participate at this stage to let the CCWG make a determination.
• There are pros and cons to having the community involved - need to understand what is meant by community involvement. All mechanisms appear to allow for community involvement to a certain extend.
• All mechanisms will need to meet legal and fiduciary requirements. The survey asked about best equipped to meet legal and fiduciary requirements, but indeed the understanding is that all mechanisms will need to meet these requirements.
• Will need a more detailed presentation on the four mechanisms for the upcoming meeting
• Disappointing to see low response rate from members to the CCWG.
• Responses to the survey are mainly based on assumptions instead of concrete information being available. All mechanisms are viable. There will be differences, but would need some scenarios that would need to have more flesh on them. Could you also split funds over different mechanisms?
• May need to be more forceful in decision-making process?
• Looking at rating for four mechanisms, scoring is relatively close, with a current preference for a mechanism within ICANN. Does the CCWG want to pass all mechanisms to the Board and have them choose, or does the CCWG want to make a recommendation?
• Should the survey be reopened to allow for some additional time for members / participants to respond?
• Should an external person be engaged to flesh out these mechanisms?
• May need to distinguish between internal to ICANN and external mechanisms? May be difficult as for example, a foundation could be considered internal too. 
• Discuss as part of next week's meeting, whether CCWG can narrow down the # of mechanisms to be further considered? As well as, should an external expert be engaged to put flesh on bones of each mechanism? CCWG expected to respond to these questions during next week's meeting.
• Might be helpful to reach out to Board liaisons to see whether there are any red flags in relation to any of the mechanisms?
• Note that charter questions and early conversations in relation to the charter questions have been documented here: https://community.icann.org/x/PNrRAw [community.icann.org]. Those that joined the CCWG at a later stage, are encouraged to review this information.

 

Action item #4: Staff to reopen survey to allow for additional responses. Deadline: Wednesday 16 May at 18.00 UTC.

Action item #5: CCWG members and participants to respond to survey, if they have not done so yet. Staff to send a reminder.

Action item #6: Staff to include scoring based on members responses only.

Action item #7: Staff to recirculate available presentation materials as well as newsletters that members and participants can share with their respective groups

 

ICANN62 Planning

·         High interest topic session scheduled for Wednesday 27 June from 15.15 - 16.45

·         A CCWG meeting is being planned for Wednesday 27 June from 17.00 - 18.30

 

Action item #8: Staff to circulate doodle poll to assess CCWG member / participant attendance for ICANN62.

 

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 [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org].