Hello all. Please find included below the notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting on Wed, 21 August 2019 (14 UTC). Note that the order of the agenda items was changed during the call. The notes below reflect the order for the discussions. Best regards, Joke Braeken 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/2019+Meetings. ACTION ITEMS AI#1: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): Leadership to clarify item number 4 based on the comments during today’s meeting (input from Alan, Marylin, Judith, Sylvia) AI#2: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): review the language from the charter, to ensure the proposed next steps are in line with the charter AI#3: Alan will update the proposal regarding the role of the community, based on today’s discussion. He will share the updated version shortly. AI#4: Once the updated version by Alan is shared with the CCWG, the leadership team to check whether the guidelines for the implementation team need to be checked, to evaluate whether something needs to be added AI#5: Include in the guidelines: the mechanism will be responsible for the process of selecting and appointing independent experts, informed by the work done by the CCWG and the criteria / skills identified in the implementation phase. Clarifying language regarding the first selection of the expert project evaluation panel to be added, once an appropriate location has been found. AI#6: Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism: Language to be updated, based on today’s discussions NOTES 1. Welcome/Agenda Welcome by Erika Mann 2. Review/SOI Updates None. 3. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) Overview prepared by the leadership team. Proposed steps that leadership developed to move to possibly 1 mechanism as the final recommendation. Is there support for doing that? Use an indicative ranking survey, among the CCWG members, to indicate whether there would be support for putting fwd 1 or 2 mechanisms to the ICANN Board. Then share the results with the respective chartering organisations, together with an updated version of the newsletter. This would also be shared with the broader community. Then we would re-run the survey among the CCWG, followed by an assessment of the results. This will lead to a consensus, as specified in the CCWG’s charter. If full consensus cannot be achieved, there will be a timeline for the submission of minority statements. Then the report will be submitted to the chartering organisations OR, there will be another round of public comments. Judith: What is the intent of the 2nd survey? Are we putting forward only 1 mechanism? Erika: This group is not voting on anything. The 2 phased approach gives everyone more time for reflection. Alan: Survey of the SO/ACs, or a survey of the CCWG members? Erika: 1st is an indicative survey by the CCWG members. The 2nd survey will reflect the discussion these members had with their respective groups, and report back with a single opinion. Suggestion to have a ranking, and to add a question “ can you live with this outcome”. Marilyn: Understood that appointed members need to keep their chartering organisations informed. Vote by the GNSO Policy Council. Lot of disparities between the positions. Also disparity on the attendance records. Marika: At the end of the day, the chartering organizations will need to vote/adopt the recommendations so if there are difference of opinions that can already be addressed here, it would increase the changes of support by chartering organizations? Sylvia: Independent of the mechanism, there should be a set of criteria that all mechanisms have in common. Use the comparative slides, to bring closure to this process. Marika: Clarification. Cut and paste the language with regards to the expectations of the members with respect to their appointing organisations. Members to start the dialogue with their respective groups, on what the next steps are. Maarten: Feedback on what they think the Boards’ position is, and what is important is on the fiduciary requirements and bylaws requirements. Early september there will be a Board Meeting, feedback will be provided afterwards. AI#1: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): Leadership to clarify item number 4 based on the comments during today’s meeting (input from Alan, Marylin, Judith, Sylvia) AI#2: Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s): review the language from the charter, to ensure the proposed next steps are in line with the charter 4. Steps to finalize work by ICANN66 Aim to finalise the work by ICANN66. Timeline of the different steps is being shared in the zoom room. Session at ICANN66: Wednesday, 6 November. 15:15-18:30. Potentially end at 16:45 5. Updated Proposal – Role of the Community * What do we call this? Panel? Committee? For specific reviews we call them working Groups. Alan prefers panels, for both of the groups. * Edit made, saying that the periodic (annual) review panel may include community volunteers. Suggestion to replace “may” with “will”. * May participants be compensated? It could be a nominal token amount, not necessarily a salary. ICANN typically does not provide compensation, other than travel support. Alan recommends to take this out. Marilyn: programme review panel. Suggestion: Participants in the panel “could” be compensated, based on their work. This leaves it open. Honorarium obligates people. The next implementation team needs to make a final decision on this. * Zero, 1 or 2 members per SO/AC. Should the GNSO have more members? Marilyn does not understand the rationale to have more GNSO people than others. The money does not belong to the GNSO. Jonathan does not have an opinion and has not heard any strong views from the GNSO * Independent selected people. Experts. Are these 2 different groups or the same the independent people are the experts in Alan’s view. Big group is not effective. Maarten: current thinking is that the panel should not interact with the independent panel during the evaluations. Simplicity is preferred. Marilyn: adding expertise, either from inside icann, people that have expertise in evaluation, and/or granting. Independently selected members who could come from the icann community, or who could be selected from external expertise in evaluating. Erika: we speak here about the annual review, that judges what the evaluation team is doing. They are not evaluating projects. Alan: no issue in merging the 2. No prohibition that experts come from the community. This group is not only looking at whether the projects funded are the right ones, but also at the whole process. Becky: HOPE the panel is NOT charged with deciding whether the selections were right. That opens up huge risk. The question is are the funds being used in furtherance of the specified purpose
. Critical to stay away from project level analysis. Sylvia: process is separate from the monitoring and evaluation of the projects. If the text goes to much into details we might end up with difficulties. Depending on the size of the grants, the timeframe these projects will take might be very complicated. Tackle it here, so make sure there is no confusion possible by the implementation team * 3rd bullet. It is not a financial audit. * 4th bullet * Last item: controversial. The project evaluation group that evaluates applications, may seek guidance on the wording of the criteria has been given, to ensure decisions are taken in line with the intent of the criteria. Not a lot of support for this. Suggestion to scrap this bullet completely. Maarten agrees * Why 2 panels instead of 1? Composition and workload is different. the 2nd panel looks at the decisions made by this group and the implementation group, and to see whether significant changes are needed, or is this group on track? * 2 way-triggering. Either by the panel that does the annual evaluation, or by the Board Organisational effectiveness committee. The annual review is light-touch, but the one after 3 years is a heavy lifting. Erika prefers to keep the second one in. unsure how long the money is going to last. * Mandatory timeframe? Marilyn prefers it to have extremely light. Requirement of a 3-year review. 5-years is what is usual in larger funds (erika’s preference). Group thinks 3 years sounds reasonable. * Bylaws say specific reviews must be done every 5 years. Generally agreed that this was a mistake. We could make a recommendation to consider initiating a review. Or every 3 years subject to Board approval. * 3 years for the first review is too soon in Alan’s view. Suggestion: First review at 4 years, and the 3 years thereafter. Marylin does not agree, since everyone suggests 3 years. Group agrees to keep the early trigger, and to keep the review at 3 years (mandatory), including the very first one. * Annual panel to be continued or not. AI#3: Alan will update the proposal regarding the role of the community, based on today’s discussion. He will share the updated version shortly. AI#4: Once the updated version by Alan is shared with the CCWG, the leadership team to check whether the guidelines for the implementation team need to be checked, to evaluate whether something needs to be added 6. Update on the Work of the Small Group Focused on the Independent Panel Selecting Funding Recipients Stepped forward to the small team: Marylin Cade, Maureen Hilyard, Vanda Scartezini, Ching Chiao, Thato Mfikwe, Alan Greenberg, Jonathan Robinson, Elliot Noss Erika presents the proposed updated language for inclusion in the Final Report following the call last week by the small team. Erika introduces this language during today’s meeting. However, it has not been reviewed yet by the small team. The idea is to get some initial input from the group that the small team can then factor in when it finalizes the language following today’s meeting. Marilyn: Does not recall what Jonathan’s concerns were. Neutral and balanced representation. Erika: Complete independence for people from the community that serve on a panel? Prefers Jonathan to clarify his point himself. Maarten: Important to be clear on what expertise and independence means. We aim to provide more insight after the Board workshop Alan: Eliott has not been able to be either at small group meetings or lately the CCWG. Elliot prefers the group that selects projects to be consisting of community members. Sylvia: Prefers to include in the title” proposal for applications”. Evaluation is a word that might create confusion. Who selects the members on the panel? Depending on the scope of the grants call, volunteers need to know about grant management, project management, and the subject matter. In the call for volunteers, the expertise should be clearly described. Erika: We talk about experts, let’s avoid the word volunteer. When they apply, they are experts Sylvia: Expertise should be linked to the actual round of funding. Marika: It would be the mechanism that would be responsible for selection of the experts, not the implementation team. Implementation team could be involved in developing the criteria, but it may be a slippery slope if they are involved in appointments. AI#5: Include in the guidelines: the mechanism will be responsible for the process of selecting and appointing independent experts, informed by the work done by the CCWG and the criteria / skills identified in the implementation phase. Clarifying language regarding the first selection of the expert project evaluation panel to be added, once an appropriate location has been found. 7. Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism Language circulated on the list. General support for the re-wording Appeals: Not typical that a reason is given. Avoid this. Do not justify why a project was rejected. We should be clear on what we want the implementation team to do. Feedback is however important. Alan: how is feedback different from reasons? We might not want to put the feedback in writing, and also the workload might be too large. We could add language that legal action is not possible, or something along those lines. Liability issues. Sylvia: Agrees with Alan. if the guidelines are clear, there is less need for feedback. Those that receive feedback are more engaged with the project in the future. AI#6: Discussion Individual Appeal Mechanism: Language to be updated, based on today’s discussions 8. AOB Wednesday, 18 September 2019 | 14 UTC 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