Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG meeting. You are kindly invited to take particular note of the action items and associated deadlines. Included in attachment:
- Open internet definition (see Action items below)
- Work plan (see Action items below)
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on 16 November 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 Adobe Connect
- Please state your name before speaking and remember to mute your mics/computers when not speaking
2. Welcome / DOI
- Please remember to keep your DOI/SOI up to date
3. Completing Stage 2
a. Review updated examples document
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit
- identify projects, and state whether they are within ICANN's mission. The idea was not to discuss the individual projects, but this list is a basis to collect ideas,
on what would be covered by ICANN's mission statement - co-chair Erika mentioned that guidance is needed on nr. 8 and nr. 12 from this list. Moreover, items 19 to 22 are newly added, and have not been discussed yet
by the full group.
Comments & discussion:
- Point 8
- Seems to be agreement that this is not within the mission
- No support for this. We should focus on policy, not on creating new business
- There is no strong support for this point number 8, so why should it end up in the same category as point 12?
- This point should be eliminated
- Point 12
- unclear whether this is within the mission or not
- we should not be too narrow in our understanding of the mission statement
- inappropriate use of the funds, smells too much like marketing
- Marketing new gTLDs is up to the new gTLDs, this would be outside of our scope.
- ICANN engaging in marketing, would be negatively viewed. A legal investigation is needed, whether this is within scope. Are we violating ICANN’s integrity?
- No support to promote branding, but awareness raising regarding names is important. Information sharing as such would be fine.
- The AGB used it as an example for the use of those funds, so why would it not be within ICANN’s mission? “grants to support new gTLD applications" is contained
in the Applicant Guidebook as a potential use of auction proceeds -- again let's not look at the specific merits of an example, but whether the category might be ok
- suggestion regarding point 8 and point 12: create 2 categories: those that are within the mission mandate, those that are not (but are nonetheless useful to the general objectives of this project). Do
not delete point 8 and 12 for the moment, but keep them in a separate list. keep the “grey areas” as examples at the very end of the document.
- Projects typically have a business plan. Other organisations are doing social work, supporting social development. Do not discard projects, simply because
of the risk or the financial implications. Many private sector organisations are doing work that is good for the internet in general.
- Agreement that point 8 and 12 are more “out” than “in” the mission, but there are certain questions raised which are worth keeping in mind.
- These are just examples, not concrete projects.
Action item #1: staff to adjust the document, putting example (8 and) 12 at the very end of the list. Document and link to the google doc to be re-sent to
the group by staff. The group is invited to review the document again, ahead of the next meeting in 2 weeks’ time.
- Point 22:
- Suggested is to take this example out. It is related to the reserved fund. This is not a concrete project. If one day we receive a formal request from the
Board, we will have to debate it between the CCWG and SO/ACs and the ICANN Board.
- BC has submitted a supporting comment. Supports the idea for this to be supported by the auction funds. The Business Constituency believes that item 22 should
be supported.
- By taking item 22 out, we are not saying this is going to be supported or not. This is a pre-decision, ahead of the establishment of any foundation, ahead
of any concrete project.
- did the BC discuss this point about the reserve funds, in relation to the excess litigation reserve? (This question was not answered and parked to a later
moment)
- Double-dipping. By taking it out of this list, we do not prevent it from being considered through some other mechanism
- Explore the possibility of topping the ICANN reserve funds, and when ICANN Org has the resources, the money can go back to bucket of auction proceeds.
- Suggestion to discuss this when we receive the formal request from the Board
group members are kindly invited to update the google document. (see action item #1)
b. Open and Interoperable Internet description
Overview of the changes made to the document, since Abu Dhabi, including:
- clarification that the auction proceeds are from the new gTLD programme
- clarify that we talk about ICANN's mission statement
- last segment: to be specified about which CCWG we are talking about
Comments and discussion:
- this groups should not be providing guidelines for applicants. our scope is limited to guidance on the allocation of funds.
- what needs to be aligned with ICANN's mission, are the projects. The applications itself cannot do so, nor the applicants. Suggested is to rephrase the beginning, and also the last paragraph.
- This document guides the evaluator, when they face projects that are questionable, they have some guidance, but they should not be considered as guidelines.
- Terminology and meaning regarding guidance/guidelines. Those words do not translate easily. By offering guidance, you offer ideas that can guide the decision. This was what the group tried to achieve. We should not over
interpret what we say. This document will be subject to public comment.
- further work may be needed based on input that may be received from others at a later stage in the process.
Action item #2: staff is to re-send the draft definition to the group. The group is invited to review the document one more time, and to submit final comments
ahead of the next meeting. The aim is to finalise the document by the next call.
c. Discuss next steps
The leadership team needs to informally consult with the Board and the legal team. The definition document is to be sent to them after our next call. The group can continue the discussion based on their feedback.
4. Stage 3: review and refine questions for experts
Action item #3: The group is asked to review the questions, to determine whether these accurately convey points made. Is the list of questions complete?
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lilXNBowHooDiR1AyxF9ckA8ZRO1Gphx9rQLBZcXgMo/edit
- different mechanisms have been sketched out and discussed in Abu Dhabi
- Advice needed from the group. What is the ideal scenario/mechanism?
- We need to determine which questions are either for the CCWG, which ones are for ICANN, or for external experts.
Comments and discussion:
- when to ask external advice? it would be good to have a clear preference from the group regarding the preferred option. The group needs to narrow down the choice, and then ask for advice from external parties
- what about the arrangement for conflicts of interest, when experts are engaged?
- Sam Eisner from ICANN legal confirmed that the point regarding the Conflict of Interest is indeed important. We need to make sure that experts that come in, have not yet been contacted by those that intend to apply for funds. We might expect to receive an NDA later
from the experts, however we should conduct a higher-level information gathering exercise as a first step, with the experts.
- Perhaps better to present all mechanisms to the experts, to avoid we are narrowed down in our own line of thinking.
Action item #4: The leadership team will submit a proposal for a way forward to this group, regarding the approach for the involvement of experts, and the
timeline.
5. Review and discuss updated work plan
- phase 2 to be finalised at next call, ideally.
- Phase 3: list of experts. https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Expertise
- Regarding the completion of the work by this group, the work plan foresees the draft document to be ready before ICANN61 in Puerto Rico.
- Currently we have only one call scheduled with the experts, in December. This might not be sufficient. Potentially further calls needed.
- Questions raised by co-chair Erika:
- should we have a longer call with the experts?
- should we have weekly calls?
- do you agree to finalise the work by Puerto Rico?
The group agreed to work on the basis of the current work plan. The work plan is to be reviewed again by the leadership team, based on the discussion regarding the experts. In case adjustments are needed to the work plan, an
updated work plan will be sent for discussion with and approval by the CCWG.
6. Confirm next steps and time/date for next meeting
Thu, 30 Nov. 2017 (14:00 UTC)