Hi Daniel -

Our current CCWG AP phase is defined in the following way:

We're tasked to deliver (a) proposal(s) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (see complete CCWG text below.

We're not tasked in recommendations or determination with regard to specific funding decision.

Many of the points you raised in your recent emails about specific funding recommendations, relate to the next phase, the phase that follows our work. This phase we call 'implementation phase'.

Warmest regards,

Erika

CCWG AP complete task (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)

"The CCWG is tasked with developing a proposal(s) for consideration by the Chartering Organizations (those ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that have adopted the CCWG Charter) on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. That proposal will then be submitted to the ICANN Board.

As part of this proposal, the CCWG is expected to factor in a number of legal and fiduciary principles[DOC, 48 KB], due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN's tax-exempt status, as well as address matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not).

The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions¹, taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined in the charter:

What framework (structure, process and/or partnership) should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds?
What will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN's mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANNserves?
What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
What aspects should be considered to define a timeframe, if any, for the funds allocation mechanism to operate as well as the disbursements of funds?
What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
Should any priority or preference be given to organizations from developing economies, projects implemented in such regions and/or under-represented groups?
Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to or coordinate with another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose?
What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds?
To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations?

As a first step, the CCWG is expected to (1) develop and adopt a work plan and an associated schedule of activity and (2) at a minimum, to publish an Initial Report for public comment followed by a Final Report, which will be submitted to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration. The ICANNBoard will consider the report in its final decision-making and the Board has committed to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:

Erika, could you give a bit more details on what is "the implementation review team", and what it is supposed to deliver, in the various scenario we're looking at.

Thanks.

On 2018-04-12 15:44, Erika Mann wrote:

DEAR ALL -

WE LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE
HAVING IN VARIOUS EMAIL EXCHANGES. WE DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS IN THE
LEADERSHIP TEAM ON TUESDAY AND WE DO HOPE YOU FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
HELPFUL. WE MAY HAVE SOME TIME TODAY AT THE END OF OUR EXCHANGE WITH
SARAH TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS.

* IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREAMBLE, WE RECOMMEND THE
FOLLOWING APPROACH: AS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO ICANN61, INSTEAD OF
REWORKING THE PREAMBLE AT THIS STAGE, WE RECOMMEND TO DEFER THIS ITEM
TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE THIS
PREAMBLE SHOULD SERVE. WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY
WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SUCH A PREAMBLE WAS TO HELP FUTURE PROJECT
EVALUATORS TO UNDERSTAND ICANNS MISSION DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU
REMEMBER, WE WERE WORRIED THAT A TOO NARROW UNDERSTANDING OF THE
MISSION STATEMENT, WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE
MEANTIME WE ACHIEVED AN UNDERSTANDING - WITH THE BOARD - THAT PROJECTS
THAT 'ARE IN SERVICE OF THE MISSION'' MIGHT STILL FALL
WITHIN THE MISSION AND MIGHT THEREFORE RECEIVE FUNDING. IN ADDITION,
THE EXAMPLES WE COLLECTED, PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATORS ON
WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN SERVICE OF ICANN'S MISSION. THE
DETAILS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPECTED TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM (WHICH WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMUNITY
MEMBERS), SUPPORTED BY STAFF.

* ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL HAVE TO SEND A REPLY TO THE MOST RECENT
LETTER FROM THE BOARD, THE BOARD TOUCHED ON THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR.
WE WILL SEND YOU OUR DRAFT FOR REVIEW SHORTLY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO
THIS DISCUSSION.

* IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS POINT, WE WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE
THAT THE CCWG IS EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER. AS SUCH, WE
WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE HIGH-LEVEL ASPECTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST ON THE SIZE
THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANCHES OF FUNDING ALLOCATION SHOULD HAVE. WE DO
NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CCWG IS ASKED TO DECIDE ON
– INSTEAD, A CCWG RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE
ALLOCATED IN TRANCHES WITH FURTHER DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE
SUBSEQUENT STAGES FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

* SIMILARLY, SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE ON THE LIST TO SET ASIDE FUNDS TO
SUPPORT ICANN TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS NOTED IN
THE CHARTER, THE CCWG IS NOT TASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO
WHICH PROJECTS SHOULD BE FUNDED, INSTEAD, ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS
ASKED, WHETHER ICANN ORG COULD BE A BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THE AUCTION
FUNDS. THEREFORE THE CCWG SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT QUESTION.

* OF COURSE, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO STIFLE DISCUSSION, BUT AS OUR
TIMELINE IS SHORT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOCUSES ON WHAT
NEEDS TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO PUBLISH AN INITIAL REPORT BY ICANN62. AS
SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN
RECEIVED TO DATE BY EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BOTH IN THE FORM OF RESPONSES TO
THE SURVEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATION IN OUR CALLS, SO YOU CAN LET US
KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MISSING TO FACILITATE A DETERMINATION OF
WHICH MECHANISM(S) IS PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN
THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR WORK. IF THERE IS TIME REMAINING ON OUR CALL ON
THURSDAY, WE WILL TOUCH UPON THESE QUESTIONS.

WARMEST REGARDS,
ERIKA
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds