Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting. Best regards, Joke Braeken = = = = = = = Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - 19 December at 14:30 UTC 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 AC * Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome & DOI/SOI updates * Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed * this is an orientation call on how to move forward. 3. High-level overview of public comment review tool * The staff report was published. The public comment period is now formally closed. * Certain comments provided via the public comments focused on a charter question or on a recommendation, whereas others were more "free format". In the Review tool, which is being displayed in the AC room, you will note that the comments were broken into pieces and added to certain sections, based on their focus. * Most of the comments were focused on recommendations, annexes or charter questions. Lay-out: * top - dark blue: overall topic. * Column 1: number of the comments, for easy future reference * Column 2: the excerpt from the original text (word for word), * Column 3: the contributor, * Column 4: standard template. No analysis has been done yet. The WG can code these comments (concerns, divergence, agreement, new idea) while doing the analysis. There is room foreseen for the WG to specify how it intends to deal with the comment. The colour-coding is simply intended to help the group setting up for the analysis. * Grey: high-level overview of what the comments refer to. High-level summary, no judgement or analysis here. 4. Next steps for reviewing public comments 4 types of comments: * comments received related to our questions * completely new comments: some comments are not related to the questions we asked, or to previous discussions by the CCWG. We need to identify those points, and discuss how we intend to deal with them. * Some of the comments relate more to the implementation phase. We need to identify those comments, and come to an agreement that those topics refer to the implementation phase. * Referring to what was implicitly included in the Initial Report, but not explicitly stated out Action item #1: Following a proposal by the chair and co-chair: the leadership team and staff will do a first analysis of the comments received, by grouping them into categories. (comments related to our charter questions/recommendations; new comments; comments that relate to the implementation phase; comments related to what is implicitly stated) * If the final recommendations are very different compared to the initial report, we need a new public comment period. * what the CCWG was discussing was a structure where members of the community would be the ones that would be reviewing and deciding. The Inital Report was silent on that. We considered that as being implied, but it should have been mentioned in a more explicit way, said Elliot. The comments received via the public comments process covered with how to deal with the COI and separation from the Org. The fact that the CCWG assumed it should be community group reviewing and deciding addresses many of the comments, both directly and indirectly. * Erika confirmed this concern is being recorded, and that it will be addressed, since many of the comments refer to this. Caveat: we have not made a concrete recommendation. * A group member expressed his surprise that the CCWG did not think about those comments while it was doing the work. * Becky Burr and Maarten Botterman confirmed that the board has sent comments which say that it is imperative that the evaluation be independent. The Board had contemplated this as being an independent experts board, applying the criteria developed by the community. There are other ways to have this independence. Emphasis is on the critical nature of the independence of the evaluator. 2 assumptions: * Chair confirms an explicit understanding among the CCWG that the community is involved. We did not discuss how this involvement happens. * Chairs confirms there shall be an independent review. Various combinations are possible here. Note that Marika is currently OOO and ICANN offices are closed next week. Re-opens again on 2 January. Timeline for initial analysis to be determined shortly. 5. CCWG meeting schedule * may depend on the initial analysis, does it make sense to meet every 2 weeks? fixed time? or do we need a different meeting cycle? * Leadership thinks it would be good to deliver clarification on the topics brought up under the public comments by the Kobe meeting. Suggestion to do most of the work ahead of Kobe, and have a half a day meeting in Kobe to finalise the work. * Do we need a second public comment period? Some group members prefer not to have one, some say it cannot be avoided. Action item #2: Secretariat to share a poll via the mailing list, to determine the preferred time for the future calls, under the assumption that calls will happen every 2 weeks. 6. Next steps for work plan towards Final Report The need for a second public comment period depends on the content of the next report. Noting feedback from the Board received from the public comment period: "If the report changes significantly as a result of Public Comment, the Board would encourage a second period of Public Comment to make sure that the community and beyond have opportunities to comment on any material changes to the approach and options set forth in this draft before submission to the Chartering Organizations for adoption." 7. Reconfirmation of membership attendance is dropping. do we need to reconfirm membership, to remind people about the important work? Comments from the group that there is no need to reconfirm membership, that it would be hard to bring new members up to speed at this stage. Others mentioned that there is a lot of work still to be done, and we should ensure the CCWG has adequate resources. Action item #3: reconfirmation of membership to be discussed again at the end of the next meeting. 8. AOB Scheduling of future meetings needs to be verified against the work by other groups as well. Thank you all. Happy holidays.