Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. As a reminder, there is no call next week. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 26 April 2018

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 Webex
• Please remember to mute your lines when not speaking and state your names before speaking for transcription purposes.

2. Welcome / Updates to SOIs/DOIs

• Everyone is encouraged to review their SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed.

3. Input provided by external experts

                3.1. overview of the responses received

wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]

o summary document with notes of all meetings with experts: see word-file in attachment

o summary table in google sheet, including potential gaps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7ZeDfzP_A/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com] Highlighted in yellow are the questions that have received no answers.

                3.2. CCWG assessment | What topics or issues - if any - require further discussion/consideration before a determination can be made on the preferred mechanism?

o Do we need to decide upon a single mechanism or shall we recommend a hierarchy of choices to the public comment period?

o Not yet discussed: 

o    Shall we recommend an advisory board (SO/AC/Board/ICANN ORG members) in case of potential conflicts? ( - Nominet and EIB for example - )

o    Is there a need to define 'supervision' from ICANN Org further? 

o    One-off fund or long-term fund?  

·         Do we want to define the sunsetting period?

• Item 3 and 4 are closely related. First of all, identifying what information, if any, is missing to be able to make a determination about the preferred mechanism, followed by discussing how a determination can be made concerning the preferred mechanism under item 4.
• See under 3.1. all the relevant documents which should have been reviewed by the CCWG for this discussion.
• Topics identified as part of this agenda item were identified by leadership team, CCWG encourage to indicate if there are other topics that need to be considered.
• The objective is to identify what issues, if any, need to be clarified or addressed before a determination can be made with regards to preferred mechanism, but if some of these issues may not need to be addressed at this stage, but they could be deferred to a later stage. 
• Should an in-house mechanism be chosen, there would need to be some kind of balance, possibly in the form of a Board which would provide external expertise?
• Parallel discussion on ICANN Reserve Fund - process still under way, but it includes a question concerning whether auction proceeds could be used to replenish the reserve fund. Not clear how this may impact the CCWG's deliberations. Also issue of appropriateness or not of utilizing a portion of Auction Proceeds.
• Consider undertaking a straw poll to get a sense of where the group stands - many issues have been extensively discussed. Loudness and frequency of comments should not be a determining factor.
• Has the group fully explored what the liability is for Board / Staff it they would be running a fund distribution mechanism?
• Need to be careful that there is understanding of potential conflicts and be neutral when analyzing the potential conflicts for the organization.
• Need to be more fact based, cannot rely solely on opinion.
• Regardless of which mechanism that is chosen to do the work, there would always be a certain level of independence and following whatever rules are set by the CCWG for disbursement of funds. Conflating different issues here as independence and recommendations would apply to any mechanism chosen.
• Not a lot of research has been done yet regarding liability - within the ICANN system, the more the decisions are placed in-house, the whole range of accountability mechanisms would apply and could be activated. If it would be done with a third party, any such requirements would be contractually established. No additional liability compared to other organizations that would be disbursing funds, but due consideration would need to be given to building good structures and processes. Legal will check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability, but it is not obvious at this stage.
• Has independence already been defined in the context of the CCWG deliberations? See for example PTI - but in the context of auction proceeds, there should be a majority of independent directors to ensure there is a balance with external oversight. Could easily be achieved with community representation and/or external expertise.
• Cira has the same size and type fund as Nominet and has always insourced. Community members do the heavy lifting with some staff support.
• CCWG may also need to confirm whether there is still support for previously agreed preliminary agreements or whether opinions have changed based on input from external participants

Action item #1: Samantha Eisner to check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability for ICANN Org / Board and report back accordingly, if possible ahead of the launch of the survey.

4. Next steps in making a determination of what is the preferred mechanism:

o Criteria?

o Survey?

o Ranking?

• Conduct a straw poll survey to assess current thinking of CCWG on mechanisms
• There are preconceived notions that may not be correct that could influence responses - as such, needs to be linked to the criteria that you are looking for.
• Staff / leadership team to work on a draft survey that is to be shared with the CCWG for review before launching it.
• Possible outcome for Initial Report could be a recommendation for a single model or ranking of models - will depend on outcome of the survey.
• Need to be careful in drafting the survey that independence is only applicable to one mechanism versus others.

Action item #2: Staff to work with co-chairs to develop proposed straw poll survey which is to be shared with the CCWG for review and input prior to launch.

Action item #3: Following circulation of straw poll survey, CCWG to review and provide input as soon as possible. 

5. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 3 May 2018 at 14.00 UTC

• No meeting next week to allow for prep time for survey and discussions on the mailing list. Next meeting will be scheduled for 10 May 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.