NOTES | CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds | 18 March 2020 (14:00 UTC)
Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below 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 . Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS 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. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Continuation of review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report, beginning with Question #2, Comment #4 Public Comment Question #2 Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as listed in Section 1 above, in response to the public comment forum? If yes, please specify what changes concern you and why? Comment #4 * No additional action needed. Comment #5 * 1st part of the comment: Input requested from ICANN Legal. Pending written follow-up later this week. Sam confirmed the BC’s statement is correct. Comment #6 * Webinar at the close of the work by this group. Support by Anne and Yao for the webinar Comment #7 * No comments from the room Comment #8 & comment #9 * Out of scope. Referring to the .com public comment Public Comment Question #3 Comment #1 * Leadership recommendation: No action needed * No comments from the room Comment #2 * Context: see charter question 10 * See public comment question #2. ALAC comment. * Personal opinion by Alan: no rationale for constituent parts of ICANN not to be able to apply. * Judith: many ALSes are independent legal entities. They should be able to apply, but according to same process as everyone else Separate legal entities that may not be able to apply · Anne: if ICANN org would apply for a grant, the grant sum would come into their budget. Icann org has reserved the right to use the funds before they are divided into tranches. How will the implementation review team define the concept of a legal entity? · Alan: wording is clear enough. Carolina agrees. Board was clear that ICANN org cannot apply. · Sam: up to each entity that applies to be responsible for due diligence upon itself. how it is a legal entity? · Danko: Board letter was clear. Budget process is not impacted. · Conclusion: no further changes needed. Comment #3 * Alan: confused by the comment “re-activated”. All funds dispensed, and then additional funds show up? Unlikely scenario. * Anne: limited scope of the CCWG, so whatever mechanism is selected, should be easy to be sun-setted, or reactivated. We were not supposed to create a perpetual mechanism Comment #4 * Anne: not advocating re-opening anything. Wonders if could address this by saying that the definition of underserved populations would be up to the implementation review team. * Currently included in the response for charter questions #6 that these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase * Nothing missing in the text according to the leadership recommendation * Alan: My comment was going to be that my recollection was that the board explicitly said that the selection panel should NOT be a "community group" although individual members could be from the community (but not be there representing them) * Anne: make a cross-reference. Say that we have addressed the things they say we have not addressed. * Community members can participate in their individual capacity as an expert but not representing a particular group Comment #5 * Anne: agrees with leadership recommendations. Suggested change to the recommendation is appropriate * Alan: disagrees. Mandating that the board *must* do a feasibility study, adds another 6-8 months to this process. Trusts the board to make a reasonable decision at the time. * Erika: change current language. *must* to be replaced by (strongly) recommend/consider * Alan: Board to consider doing a feasibility study. Give the board some discretion * Danko Jevtović : BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study * Sarah Deutsch: Thanks for these comments, everyone. I don’t think a mandate is necessary and “study” might not be the right word. * Sarah: refers to what the Board said in the public comment period. * Agreement: use “encourage the Board” Comment #6 * review/evaluation * Make sure we use the correct language Comment #7 * Diversity in selecting the group that makes the project selections? We need to verify in our recommendation of the independent group that we are explicit that this group is well-versed, from a very diverse global community * Anne: human rights framework - WS 2 - Board’s obligations with respect to diversity and human rights. We cannot detract from requirements that exist already. * Judith: existing org in all 3 mechanisms. If they all have an independent group evaluating, it should relate to all 3 mechanisms * Anne: I think the ICANN Board and org will be bound by the Human Rights Framework once this is implemented in Workstream 2 work and that this will apply to all mechanisms. * Agreement: value set by icann needs to be respected, regardless of the entity (A, B, or C). leadership team to add a reference to diversity. Comment #8 * Out of scope 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) Tentative call scheduled for next week (Wed, 25 March 14 UTC). TBC [https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6w_YrCFhoVdaQmiTMHlq3G6SEEMgKhbrL-WZ2FQiC6...] Submitting report to chartering organisations: May Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
Dear All, Please find attached updated Public Comment Review Templates reflecting discussions and CCWG agreements from yesterday’s call. You can also find the templates on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/iBmJBw Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 16:35 To: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES | CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds | 18 March 2020 (14:00 UTC) Dear All, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC. Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements. The high-level notes included below 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 . Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES / ACTION ITEMS 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. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Welcome by co-Chair Erika Mann Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 2. Continuation of review of public comments on the Proposed Final Report, beginning with Question #2, Comment #4 Public Comment Question #2 Do you have any concerns about the updates the CCWG has made, as listed in Section 1 above, in response to the public comment forum? If yes, please specify what changes concern you and why? Comment #4 * No additional action needed. Comment #5 * 1st part of the comment: Input requested from ICANN Legal. Pending written follow-up later this week. Sam confirmed the BC’s statement is correct. Comment #6 * Webinar at the close of the work by this group. Support by Anne and Yao for the webinar Comment #7 * No comments from the room Comment #8 & comment #9 * Out of scope. Referring to the .com public comment Public Comment Question #3 Comment #1 * Leadership recommendation: No action needed * No comments from the room Comment #2 * Context: see charter question 10 * See public comment question #2. ALAC comment. * Personal opinion by Alan: no rationale for constituent parts of ICANN not to be able to apply. * Judith: many ALSes are independent legal entities. They should be able to apply, but according to same process as everyone else Separate legal entities that may not be able to apply · Anne: if ICANN org would apply for a grant, the grant sum would come into their budget. Icann org has reserved the right to use the funds before they are divided into tranches. How will the implementation review team define the concept of a legal entity? · Alan: wording is clear enough. Carolina agrees. Board was clear that ICANN org cannot apply. · Sam: up to each entity that applies to be responsible for due diligence upon itself. how it is a legal entity? · Danko: Board letter was clear. Budget process is not impacted. · Conclusion: no further changes needed. Comment #3 * Alan: confused by the comment “re-activated”. All funds dispensed, and then additional funds show up? Unlikely scenario. * Anne: limited scope of the CCWG, so whatever mechanism is selected, should be easy to be sun-setted, or reactivated. We were not supposed to create a perpetual mechanism Comment #4 * Anne: not advocating re-opening anything. Wonders if could address this by saying that the definition of underserved populations would be up to the implementation review team. * Currently included in the response for charter questions #6 that these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase * Nothing missing in the text according to the leadership recommendation * Alan: My comment was going to be that my recollection was that the board explicitly said that the selection panel should NOT be a "community group" although individual members could be from the community (but not be there representing them) * Anne: make a cross-reference. Say that we have addressed the things they say we have not addressed. * Community members can participate in their individual capacity as an expert but not representing a particular group Comment #5 * Anne: agrees with leadership recommendations. Suggested change to the recommendation is appropriate * Alan: disagrees. Mandating that the board *must* do a feasibility study, adds another 6-8 months to this process. Trusts the board to make a reasonable decision at the time. * Erika: change current language. *must* to be replaced by (strongly) recommend/consider * Alan: Board to consider doing a feasibility study. Give the board some discretion * Danko Jevtović : BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study * Sarah Deutsch: Thanks for these comments, everyone. I don’t think a mandate is necessary and “study” might not be the right word. * Sarah: refers to what the Board said in the public comment period. * Agreement: use “encourage the Board” Comment #6 * review/evaluation * Make sure we use the correct language Comment #7 * Diversity in selecting the group that makes the project selections? We need to verify in our recommendation of the independent group that we are explicit that this group is well-versed, from a very diverse global community * Anne: human rights framework - WS 2 - Board’s obligations with respect to diversity and human rights. We cannot detract from requirements that exist already. * Judith: existing org in all 3 mechanisms. If they all have an independent group evaluating, it should relate to all 3 mechanisms * Anne: I think the ICANN Board and org will be bound by the Human Rights Framework once this is implemented in Workstream 2 work and that this will apply to all mechanisms. * Agreement: value set by icann needs to be respected, regardless of the entity (A, B, or C). leadership team to add a reference to diversity. Comment #8 * Out of scope 3. AOB a. Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work (see attached) Tentative call scheduled for next week (Wed, 25 March 14 UTC). TBC [https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6w_YrCFhoVdaQmiTMHlq3G6SEEMgKhbrL-WZ2FQiC6...] Submitting report to chartering organisations: May Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ...>
participants (2)
-
Emily Barabas -
Joke Braeken