Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. As a reminder:

Action item #1: CCWG review the mechanism summary descriptions and identify any further questions they may have to relay to Sarah by 9 July 2018.

Action Item #2: Staff will re-open the Google document https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit. CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses and provide input to questions identified by 9 July 2018.

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika

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

New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 27 June 2018 (ICANN62 – Panama)

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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings.

1. Roll Call

Roll Call will be taken from Adobe Connect
Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and don't forget to mute your line / microphone when not speaking to avoid interruption.

2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates

Reminder - please check your SOI/DOIs and make sure these are up to date
Tony Harris: Stepping down as a member and continuing as a participant, and Marilyn Cade will join as a member from the Commercial Stakeholder Group (GNSO).

3. Status Update: Reminder of the purpose of this WG (see slides 5 through 14)

Process for development for auction proceeds allocation (slide 9) – you have the full communication channels with the Board, which is very helpful, to avoid issues at the end.
CCWG-AP Work Plan (slide 10): Now in Phase 5 -- Answer Charter Questions as Organized by Phase 1 for Mechanism(s) Determined in Phase 4.
Determine whether there is a preference for a mechanism or mechanisms, perhaps via a poll.
Four possible mechanisms for further consideration (slide 11):
How to participate (slide 14) – newsletters, join as a member, or as an observer. Also provide input in the public forum when the report is published.
Timeline: Goal is to release a draft report three weeks before ICANN63 (October 2018), and there will be a requirement for a public comment period of at least 40 days.
Publication is dependent on the number and type of comments in the public comment period.

4. Board Liaison Update/Discussion in the Board

Noted in the four models that none of them were preferred, so didn’t talk about the models. Differences were not clear to everyone.
Funds should be allocated in tranches.
Evaluation: two separate functions – administrative/criteria fulfillment – could be inside or outside ICANN, but it should be neutral and cost effective; content evaluation/qualitative analysis should be an independent panel that is neutral, with no conflicts of interest.
Not clear whether the Board signs off on proposals and note that the selection should not be second-guessed by the Board. Just that the process has been carried out properly.
Should be a step in there for a review to see that the process is meeting expectations.
There should be reports that provide feedback, at least on an annual basis, as well as a status report on the funding disbursement. There is a charter question about whether a review mechanism should be put in place and there is a Google doc to help develop suggestions.

5. Review of mechanism descriptions developed by Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners, ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs

Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners (See summary descriptions proposed:

https://community.icann.org/x/IxkFBQ):

Mechanism 1: Internal ICANN Department

Mechanism 2: ICANN+ External Organization

Mechanism 3: ICANN Foundation

Mechanism 4: External Entity

Questions/Discussion:

If in house it would be separate from the rest of ICANN Org.
Mechanisms 2 – ICANN could work with a couple of different organizations.
Question: Even considering that is short term department to be create, the compared cost still minimal considering people need to be dismissed after 2-3 years for instance? Answer: If you had a sunset period you could hire a team that would exist as long as you wanted to have this running.
Question: Would a foundation have to be US-based? Answer: Given that ICANN is a US entity it would probably be a US entity, but that would be ICANN’s decision.
Question: What would be the liability? Answer: It would be the same as for a 501c3. But if you are talking about a foundation it has its own legal liability and Board/fiduciary requirements.
Question: Is the separate board requirement applicable for all types of 501c3 entities or are there exceptions? Answer: The separate board requirement only applies to mechanism 3.
Question: Do the tax filing requirements have any limits on eligibility? Answer: When you are a listed on which tax filing it doesn’t matter that all potential grant funders need to adhere to ICANN’s mission.
Question: In comparing mechanism 1 and 2, is there a benefit to not have grant activity listed ICANN’s annual tax filings with the US government? Would ICANN be better protected by having the DAF reporting for grant activity in its tax filling? Answer: That depends on ICANN and who the recipients are.
Question re: the ability for ICANN to apply for funds: Do any of the models restrict that? Answer: With Mechanism 3 – the foundation – ICANN could not decide to allocate some of the funds to its own use (such as the reserve fund). Include this question as part of the gap analysis.

Action item #1: CCWG review summary descriptions and identify any further questions they may have to relay to Sarah by 9 July 2018.

6. Review of proposed responses to remaining charter questions (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit [docs.google.com])

Background: Charter questions need to be answered for each of the mechanisms (slide 18). Still quite a few open issues. Cannot move forward without input.
Meeting the timeline requires input from the WG.

7. Review of work plan and next steps (see slide 24 of presentation)

The goal is to have the draft report three weeks ahead of ICANN63.
Propose meetings every two weeks, but may increase to weekly if necessary to meet the goal.
May have some flexibility with publication date.
Should there be time in the schedule for WG members to take the Google doc back to their members for consideration?
There is time built in for another poll on the mechanisms.

8. Confirm next meeting (Thursday 12 July 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.