Hi everyone, Apologies for not joining the meeting last night, as my connection was very unstable due to power outages on our street. I support the preamble shared by Marika on the email below. I have added my comments to the last column of the examples document on google doc to Agree/Disagree with the conclusion provided. However, there are some examples that were mentioned during the draft discussion of the preamble that appeared to have been lost in the discussions and are not part of that document. The IXPs example is one that comes to mind. Not sure if I am mistaken, but there were others. Hope staff can review to make sure no examples posted on emails or mentioned on other documents are lost. Now, regarding action item #5, I would like to suggest the survey to be based on the slide #5 from Xavier’s file about the scenarios and ask the questions in a way that the answers are not neutral. That way the survey can be a bit more conclusive as the previous one had many answers that were on the fence. I think the questions that will actually guide our recommendation around internal, hybrid or external, are actually related to the governance, application process, disbursement and operational costs requirements listed below. Based on some of the comments I heard during that presentation, I think there might be support for example to keep the governance internal, while looking for hybrid approaches for the other criteria, so it might be more informative to break them down. Happy to volunteer to come up with a draft survey. [cid:image001.png@01D3499A.8A31D830] Regards, Sylvia ———— Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 1:00 am To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG AP meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG meeting. Please take particular note of the action items and associated deadlines. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on 19 October 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>. 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. Review of open and interoperable Internet description · A number of comments were received following the circulation of the proposed draft by the Drafting Team earlier this week · Some updates have already been made in response to the comments made (see version up on the screen during meeting), but additional comments were received since then. · CCWG requested to review latest version and encouraged to provide input on open issues (highlighted in yellow) as well as any other issues people may want to flag. Action item #1: CCWG to review latest version and provide comments / input (see attached) by COB on Sunday 22 Oct. Action item #2: DT to review / address remaining comments and share proposed final version in time for final review by CCWG at next meeting (at ICANN60). 4. Review of examples (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit[docs.google.com]) · See summary document circulated on mailing list yesterday · Note that proposed draft CCWG conclusion is currently based on fairly limited input so important for all to review to make sure it aligns with the CCWG's perspective · Idea is to share the CCWG conclusions with board & staff liaisons to obtain their input and assess whether there is alignment between the perspectives on what is deemed consistent with ICANN's mission. Action item #3: Staff to upload latest version as Google Doc and share as Word doc Action item #4: CCWG to review proposed CCWG conclusions re. examples identified and provide feedback before start of ICANN60. 5. Next steps in relation to charter question 7 ‘(‘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?’) · Based on the presentation during the last meeting, there are three different scenarios that are to be considered but it is deemed too early to make a preliminary determination as further details is needed. · Consider running another survey to ask CCWG to indicate preference at this point in time to help inform deliberations (not to come to preliminary agreement at this stage) and ask to identify what the main criteria are to make a final determination at a later point in time (for example, overall cost to ICANN or ability to provide oversight by ICANN). · All three scenarios would be considered as mechanisms are considered in the next phase of the work. Once further details are available as a result of further deliberations, another survey could be conducted to help inform a final decision. Action item #5: Staff to run short survey to obtain further input on this question. 6. Planning for ICANN60 · In order to take full advantage of the F2F time and recognising that the CCWG is ready to embark on the next phase of its work (phase 3 - Compile list of possible mechanisms that could be considered by CCWG), set up first session as a whiteboarding exercise to flesh out the different possible mechanism, incl. pros/cons, criteria, etc. · Erika has taken a first stab at developing a skeleton framework for the whiteboarding session. Skeleton framework will be shared shortly after the meeting for CCWG input prior to ICANN60. · Staff will aim to summarize input from first session for review at second session, noting that no final decisions or determinations will be made at ICANN60 as not everyone may be available to participate. · This exercise is intended to inform which mechanisms would be considered in further detail during the next phase of work in which the charter questions are to be answered from the perspective of the different mechanism(s) the CCWG agrees to pursue further. Action item #6: Staff to circulate skeleton framework to CCWG for input prior to ICANN60 7. Confirm next steps and next meetings (Thursday 02 November 2017 - 8:45– 10:15 Working Group F2F Meeting in Hall B Section B/C and 13:30 – 15:00 Working Group F2F Meeting in Hall B Section B/C) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.