Dear all, Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 (14:00 UTC) 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. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC. * Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. * Reminder: Action item #1 from previous meeting: When joining the AC room for future calls, members and participants to include behind brackets whether they are a member or participant, and for members to specify their appointing organization. This helps to have an overview of the affiliations of those participating in the call. 2. Welcome – DOI / SOI Updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed 3. Update on status of outstanding action items: a. FAQs * Frequently asked questions. * Staff is working on 2 stand-alone documents: one captures the input received to date from the ICANN Board. Second one relates to the legal and fiduciary requirements. * Aim: staff intends to share the final document well in advance of the next meeting. b. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion * What Marilyn posted to the whole list = intended as the draft of what was discussed in the small group? Unclear to Elliott. Small group did not make much further progress than what was posted on the CCWG mailing list. No substantive work done to date. * Maureen referred to the discussion around UA and others, projects that are already funded. What is achieved from the project? No consolidated statement yet. Discussion on what is appropriate or not - when making applications - that have previously been funded by ICANN. * Marika mentioned that as a reminder, the small team action item coming out of Kobe was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements” which are also referenced in the Board input. (see email by Erika in response to the thread) * Process comment by Allan: if we want to come to closure, Allan suggests to schedule a meeting * Substance comment by Allan: we do not want our words to limit good projects without a real reason * Elliott clarifies his comments on the list. Marilyn's position is a valid one. We can take the ICANN mission as the thing that is defining what the project should be, or interpret it as something that limits what the project should be. Is the purpose of the AP to benefit ICANN or to benefit the internet? Most people agreed to fund projects that benefit the internet, within the constraints of ICANN's mission. * Erika reminds the group not to repeat previously held discussions. Broader understanding of ICANN. Future evaluators should evaluate it, but only if in line with ICANN's mission. * Allan says Elliott is asking an important question. Do not restrict things. e.g. There is a fellowship and NextGen programme, but no programme for old people to be brought into ICANN. Would such a project be a valid one? Suggestion to continue the discussion in the small group. * Robert agrees with Elliott, disagrees with Allan. Use the funds to complement some of the gaps ICANN has. e.g. public participation. e.g. Variety of security/tech projects that icann currently does not fund, but that would be still in ICANN's mission. if there is overlap with what ICANN currently does, we need to document this. * Julf remembers from original discussion the following rationale: intent not to allow ICANN as an organisation to benefit from the funds, not to maximise the auction proceeds funds. Action item #1: staff will work on the scheduling of a call for the small group. Aim: have the input by the next call. Ideally discuss on the mailing list prior to that. c. Comment #1 (charter question #3) – See modified language suggested by Eliott (“Neither the Board nor staff will be taking decisions on individual applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.”) * comment from the Board: adding language to clarify that the Board is not involved in taking decisions for individual applications. Support of the revised language was expressed on the mailing list, no one opposed. d. See overview of CCWG agreements to date (see attached) and latest versions of templates (see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg) * Shared on the mailing list, together with the agenda. * Tracking on items that the group agreed to work on. How to deal with input that was provided. The document includes the CCWG agreement, the responsable party, current status of that item. * Group might only be able to deal with it at the end of the process, when a new version of the report is ready. * We record the CCWG agreements. The document will help staff in its revision of the initial report, based on what the CCWG agreed on. * Reminder what the focus of this group is: What, if anything, needs to be added or refined to the final report? 4. Continue review of comments: 1. Charter question #6 input Q6. | comment #3: * Focus of the recommendation was on ensuring that projects support capacity building and underserved populations, are part of the objective of new gTLD auction proceeds allocation. Some mentioned that applicants from underserved populations should be able to apply. * Marika: are we saying that we are lowering barriers for applications from other communities? A level playing field that allows every group/region equally to apply. * Erika: Group has a set of guidelines, which will be handed over to the transition team. Help them understand certain topics. This could be a good addition to that list. * Robert: agrees with the outreach efforts. Do we need to define what underrepresented groups or regions are? Make sure that applications are within ICANN's mission. Action item #2: comment #3. Staff to add clarification, aligned with the conversation, regarding the need for a level playing field. Language for the implementation team needs to be added on how to best support applications from diverse backgrounds. Q6 | comment #4: * Marika: comment from ICANN Board. Is the language that is suggested also addressing this comment by the ICANN Board, or is further clarification needed? Action item #3: comment #4. leadership team to revise the language to be included in the guideline. For discussion during the next call. Q6 | comment #5: Action item #4: comment #5. Leadership to make a recommendation, and to propose it to the group. 1. Charter question #7 input Q7 | comment 1: * Erika suggests to accept the language from the Board. Will be included in the FAQ list. * include in the guideline how "independence" shall be defined. * Where did the language come from, included between brackets? Action item #5: comment #1. Staff to review the board input on this topic through the FAQs to be circulated shortly. Are further changes needed? Other items make it clear that board is not involved in the evaluations. CCWG to further consider guidance to be provided for the implementation phase in relation to the criteria to be applied to confirm and ensure 'independence'. Q7 | comment #2: * independent panel. We need clarifications on what we mean by independence. * see action item #5. comment addressed elsewhere Q7 | comment #3: * topic previously covered Q7 | comment #4: * first 2 bullet points: fall. no need to further discuss * define the number? this is up to the implementation team. We define the framework, and should say something along these lines: a sufficient number of evaluators * Leave sufficient space, for the implementation team into the guideline. Action item #6: comment #4. Add guidance for the implementation phase regarding language that refers to a "sufficient group of evaluators", and at the same time leaving enough room for the implementation team itself. * Ching refers to when evaluators were contracted and paid by ICANN to review the new gTLD applications. If a reasonable compensation can bring more experience on board, we should allow for this. * Allan confirms the need to approach professionals for this task Action Item #7: Comment #4. Staff and leadership team to verify whether community involvement in the evaluations is addressed in another charter question? Based on that response, CCWG to consider how the community shall be involved in the evaluation process. * Option: to have a professional team, and a team of community evaluators. * There is a question about whether ICANN or consistituent parts can apply for funding Q7 | comment #5: * Elliott : first part of the comment reinforces that inside the stakeholde rgroup there was a lot of concern that ICANN org was making the determinations. That point has been addressed. Action item #8: Comment #5. clarify language: This has been addressed by previous comments Q7 | comment #6: * not clear what is meant here * Full comment can be read further down in the document Action item #9: comment #6. NCSG reps to clarify what is intended . * Julf Helsingius (NCSG): So yes, just making sure that there is broad (and fair) representation across the community * item to be grouped together Q7 | comment #7: * to be grouped Q7 | comment #8: * civil society is a very broad term * fair and broad representation. Action item #10: comment #8. review comment in context of broader conversation around role of the community. It is more about fair and balnced representation, and not favouring a particular group. Participation in this effort allows for involvement in the design. Q7 | comment #9: * advisory committee overseeing the process not the same as the group that oversees the selection process? * we need a draft. based on the discussions today, and then continue the discussion among the CCWG * are there volunteers available in assisting in drafting the first draft recommendation to this group? Allan is available via email. Action item #11: Comment #9. Leadership team to engage with Allan around a conversation on how such an advisory could look like, what role it could have, in line with the broader conversation of the role of the community in this process. Q7 | comment #10: * makes sense if there are big projects which are complicated in nature (e.g. root zone update) * group to the to do list we just discussed * role of community, and engagement of outside advisors Action item #12: comment #10. to be considered with the overal questions regarding role of the community, and the advisory role. Caution: slight difference with what was debated before. 1. Charter question #8 input 1. Charter question #9 input 1. Charter question #10 input 5. AOB templates for all the topics are posted on the wiki. Action item #13: CCWG members are highly encouraged to review all materials ahead of the meeting. Suggestions for agreements should be posted on the mailing list ahead of the meeting. 6. Next call. 24 April 2019 | 14:00 UTC, for 2 hours Best regards, 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