Dear all, Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14.00 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 . Best regards, Joke Braeken ACTION ITEMS Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text. Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff. Action item #3: · ICANN legal to verify the situation where ICANN would be an applicant, once the funds are transferred into a foundation. Make sure that the language is consistent with that. Verify that this is persistent for all 3 mechanisms · CCWG members to Review proposed language and provide feedback in case of concerns. Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds. · Staff to verify that the text in the body of the report is consistent with the footnote. Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference. · additional adjustment needed to the text in the report "The total net proceeds to date are $233.5 million USD." · ICANN legal/finance to confirm whether additional comment is needed, regarding the funds from the .web auction to be parked Action item #5: Reference to ongoing work regarding GPI to be added in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a global public interest framework. Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team. Action item #7: Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in. NOTES 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Ching is only on the phone bridge. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. 2. Updated Draft Final Report – Outstanding Items and Clarifications Agenda was slightly updated, compared to the version shared on the mailing list. * Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission” * Page 12 – quote from the Board, input from early stage: “The Board is responsible for making sure that ICANN’s mission is observed at all points throughout the process, and any disbursement mechanism must have processes and procedures to ensure that auction proceeds are used in a manner that contributes directly to ICANN’s mission.” (https://community.icann.org/x/V7XRAw) Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text. Becky: for this particular provision, quote from the Board’s communication. Language should remain as it is, for this particular section Next 3 bullet points are linked. (page 17, 19, 22. Response to Charter question 3, 5, 10). We added C back into the discussion. * Page 17 – response to charter question 3 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 19 – response to charter question 5 from the perspective of mechanism C * Page 22 – response to charter question 10 from the perspective of mechanism C Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff. * Page 22 – clarification of text regarding separation of auction funds and ICANN’s operational budget General comment from Marylin, where she raised that additional clarification might be needed. Keeping auction proceeds separate from operational budget. ICANN finance provided input. Will be included in the next iteration of the report. Xavier: provided language, that the overarching principle for the Auction Proceeds is not to be used to fund ICANN’s ongoing activities. “Consistently with the intended purpose of auction proceeds as stated in the Applicant Guidebook, the general use of the auction proceeds should exclude the funding of any ICANN on-going operational activities. The auction proceeds are funds that result from circumstances that are unpredictable as to their occurrence, repetition, extent and sustainability. As a result, they cannot support the management of on-going activities, which require predictable and sustainable funding.” 
Proposed text to include on page 22 Marylin: Generally this is what we are looking for. This type of information might be clear to us, but not everyone is aware. It should refer to ICANN Org. Use “consistent” instead of “consistently”. Ching: everything ICANN as an applicant does in mechanism A and B, they will fulfill the mission maintained and created by themselves. No additional requirements on ICANN’s shoulders. There is not much ICANN can do under mechanism A and B as an applicant. Sam: ICANN cannot apply for funds from the foundation, once that money is transferred to the foundation. under C there is no way in which ICANN Org could apply. Marilyn: I think it would be very difficult for ICANN to receive Auction Funds under Mechanism A and B. One reason that the CSG has been favoring Mechanism C is to have more independence, and I agree with Ching’s comments. Action item #3: * ICANN legal to verify the situation where ICANN would be an applicant, once the funds are transferred into a foundation. Make sure that the language is consistent with that. Verify that this is persistent for all 3 mechanisms * CCWG members to Review proposed language and provide feedback in case of concerns. * Page 30 – question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds * Of the $233.5 million in auction proceeds, $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. The resolution of the .WEB contention set is being challenged through ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. $36 million was allocated to the ICANN reserve fund. As of 30 June 2019, the net return on investment was $10.5m. Therefore, the total auction proceeds as of 30 June 2019 are $208 million, of which $133 million are proceeds from the .WEB auction. Emily : Additional detail added as footnote on page 30. In response to a comment from Marylin asking for additional detail on that number. Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds. * Staff to verify that the text in the body of the report is consistent with the footnote. Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference. * additional adjustment needed to the text in the report "The total net proceeds to date are $233.5 million USD." * ICANN legal/finance to confirm whether additional comment is needed, regarding the funds from the .web auction to be parked * Xavier will explain further the difference between interest and return on investment. Funds allocated at an investment account. 3 different firms have been used, to minimise risks. Investment policies are conservative. Listed also on the website. Relatively minimum and steady returns. Xavier: make it clear in the report that the specific proceeds (.web) are not available for distribution, until the proceedings have been completed. * Suggested additional text in Annex C (page 37). The purpose of the grant application must be in service of ICANN’s mission and consistent with the commitment and core values set out in the bylaws, including those relating to the global public interest. Suggestion by Maureen. Include reference to global public interest in Annex C. Becky suggested the text. Nearly impossible to define “global public interest”. Discussion paper, public session to be scheduled at ICANN66. Taking into account the decisions taken by the Board in response to a call by the Board to create a framework. Consultation ongoing. Footnote to be added, debate to be followed. Maybe addition to the guidance in the transition phase. Becky: There is no effort to “define” the GPI in a static way Action item #5: Staff to add reference to ongoing work regarding GPI in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a public interest framework. 3. Outstanding Questions for ICANN Org and Board: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90770179/Questions_31jul201... Summary provided by Erika. Sam: The Board’s reply should be coming shortly.
The ICANN org response will follow after that
. Marika: The group may need to consider if/how the responses impact the current draft of the final report, and/or the survey we intend to launch later this week. Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team. 4. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s) Timeline, which was also shared on the previous meeting and on the mailing list. a. Launch of the Indicative Survey on the mechanisms among the CCWG members. Friday 20 September Content of the survey: do you want to recommend either 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms to the ICANN Board, secondly, Rank the mechanisms in their order of preference. Give members some time to consult with their respective groups. b. Timing of the Definitive Survey – Monday 14 October Potentially next call needed in 2 week’s time, to discuss refinements. CCWG members might need to carry out their tasks in a shorter time frame. Flexibility is possible in this suggested timeframe, but limited. c. Indication of Level of Support for Mechanism and Recommendations – Friday 25 October Finalise report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to Chartering organisations. ICANN66 session on Wed, 6 Nov (15:15-18:30) to present the final report. d. Consensus Call Language from the CCWG charter that talks about the consensus call and the requirements in place. Charter talks about the Decision-making process. · Declaration of Minority Positions Action item #7 Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in. 5. Whether to Have an Additional Public Comment Period Before submitting the report to the chartering organisations for their considerations. Does the group already want to have the formal consensus call, to be included in the report? Or just an indication of the level of support? So that the community can see in which direction the group is leaning? Caution: nuanced process where the chairs look at the make-up of the positions, broadly supported, or are the views coming from one particular side of the community. It is not just a question of “counting noses”. Another public comment round regarding the proposed final report: Erika believes we should do so. Marika: In that case, what are the questions you want to ask that help you finalise the report, and making sure the report is in line with the community’s expectations. Typically, a comment period is 40 days. Additional time when it runs during an ICANN public meeting. The CCWG will need to review the comments and respond to them. Adding a minimum of 2 months to the finalisation of the report. Once the report goes to the CO, and then to the ICANN Board, the Board will typically also hold a comment period. Report: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/115641432/new%20gTLD%20AP%2... 
This is the version circulated with the agenda for this call Marilyn: we did substantive work. We do need to take public comment on that. Agrees with the suggested approach: invite to comment on the new work. If there was public comment prior to CO seeking approval, the board might not require an additional comment period. on WS2, for example, the report was transmitted directly, without comment, after chartering org approval. there IS a requirement on the policy side and for specific reviews for public comment prior to Board consideration. ICANN66 Session on Wed, 6 November (15:15-18:30). We might not need that much time to present the final report. Start of the meeting partially overlaps with another meeting. 6. AOB next meeting? Thank you all. 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