Thanks Marika. This is very helpful information. Where this gets a bit tricky is that a Fundamental Principle of a CCWG is that the Chartering Organizations must approve/support the final recommendations of the CCWG - or at least not object to them. So it seems that if this issue re amendment of the ByLaws being too cumbersome from the Board's point of view is to be worked on and resolved via the new list of CCWG members, the output would still have to come back to the Chartering organizations for amendment to the CCWG Auction Proceeds Final Report. So it would seem that the GNSO would would want to be included in a final step of approval/non-objection on whatever comes out of the work product of the new list. In this regard, I note that the former chairs of the CCWG have expressed an opinion that the Board should stick with the ByLaws amendment approach. Others on the list have asked whether there could be a deviation from that approach for the first $10M in grants while a Fundamental ByLaws amendment process is pursued. The point of this bifurcation would be to be able to proceed with the Implementation plan adopted by ICANN Org in a timely manner. The letter received by Council might be considered a request for GNSO Input under the Annexes, especially since CCWGs are strongly encouraged to consider those policy tools . However, it may be that the Input process is too cumbersome or doesn't fit the facts here. (I haven't separately examined that.) Nevertheless, it appears that the GNSO, as one of the Chartering Organizations, would have to formally approve (or at least non-object to) any solution developed on the newly-constituted list and that all Chartering Organizations for the CCWG would have to have the same process in relation to amending the CCWG Final Report. If the approach on the new list is to undertake an amendment of the Final Report and if all Chartering Organizations approve (or non-object to) that amendment, then Chartering Organization approval of the proposed amendment should work to address this issue. So I think that under the CCWG Fundamental Principles, the Council would have to communicate to the Board that it reserves the right to review the proposed amendment coming out of the list in its Chartering Organization capacity. I also think that based on those same CCWG fundamental principles, the proposed amendment (if any) would likely have to go out for public comment first before Chartering Organization approval. I would be interested in others' thoughts on this. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:16 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Anne,
The Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups (CCWGs) can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/uniform-fr....
In case also of interest, the charter for the CCWG-AP can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, 1 September 2023 at 22:56 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] FW: Update on the Grant Program Implementation
Marika - could you please circulate the Cross Community Working Group guidelines to the Council list?
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:53 PM Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Per the action item from the last Council meeting, please review the information below and consider the ask: “please let us know if you are comfortable in having them [former CCWG-AP members] engage in this conversation or whether it should be held differently”. You are encouraged to share your feedback on the mailing list so that Council leadership can provide a response to Xavier.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of " gnso-chairs@icann.org" <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Reply to: *"Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> *Date: *Friday, 18 August 2023 at 11:04 *To: *"COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <council@gnso.icann.org>, " gnso-chairs@icann.org" <gnso-chairs@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-chairs] FW: Update on the Grant Program Implementation
Dear Council Colleagues,
Please find below an email I received from Xavier Calvez with updates on the Grant Program Implementation. This will be discussed as our last AOB next week.
Given our usual time squeeze at the end of our meetings, please make sure you come ready with questions – possibly sending them in advance to ensure we can source answers.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_1974744916]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
*From: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> *Date: *Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 01:22 *To: *XXX
*Cc: *Tripti Sinha <tripti.sinha@board.icann.org>, Maarten Botterman < maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton@icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>, Giovanni Seppia <giovanni.seppia@icann.org> *Subject: *Update on the Grant Program Implementation
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
I am contacting you in your capacity as Chairs of the Chartering Organizations of the Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP). After the CCWG-AP concluded its work in 2020, each Chartering Organization approved the report before it was provided to the ICANN Board for consideration. As you may have seen in blog posts and community sessions, the ICANN Board adopted the CCWG-AP recommendations, and ICANN org is working toward implementation. Attached you will find an update that I sent to the former members of the CCWG-AP (as appointed by your organizations).
Last month, the ICANN Board Chair also sent an email to the former members of the CCWG-AP to inform them of the Board’s intention to direct ICANN org to change the implementation path of the CCWG-AP’s Recommendation 7, which was focused on limiting the use of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms to challenge individual application decisions made by the independent assessment panel. As part of its recommendation, the CCWG-AP included that this limitation should be achieved through changing the ICANN Bylaws on the Reconsideration Request and Independent Review Processes to specify this carve out. Instead of touching ICANN’s core accountability mechanisms in the Bylaws, the ICANN Board intends to now direct ICANN org to achieve this recommendation through the applicant terms and conditions that grant applicants will agree to when submitting their grant application. More information can be found in the attached email.
Because the Board is looking to direct ICANN org to implement the CCWG-AP’s recommendation to limit access to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms in a different manner than the CCWG-AP contemplated, the Board agreed it was important to give advance notice to those who formed that recommendation. At the same time, acknowledging that the chartering organizations approved the CCWG-AP Final Report and its recommendations, we are also providing this information directly to the Chartering Organizations. In addition, we will make sure that an email exchange with one of the former CCWG-AP members in response to the Chair’s email is moved to a publicly archived mailing list so that there is a transparent record of these communications. A copy of that exchange is also provided for your reference.
The Board recognizes the significance of its forthcoming action - both in terms of maintaining the community working group’s recommendation to limit access to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and in identifying a new, limited path forward to doing so that does not involve changes to these most fundamental of ICANN Bylaws. When taken, the Board’s resolution will be accompanied by a detailed rationale acknowledging the uniqueness of this situation along with the Board’s acknowledgement that contracts should only be considered as tools for limiting the use of ICANN’s accountability mechanism when the community has recommended that access to accountability mechanisms be limited in specific circumstances.
The ICANN org team looks forward to providing further public updates on the progress of the ICANN Grant Program across various communication avenues. The creation of the former CCWG-AP members list is one of them, as is this email to you. Recognizing that the former members of the CCWG-AP now act in their individual capacity, please let us know if you are comfortable in having them engage in this conversation or whether it should be held differently.
Please let me know any question you may have.
Kind regards,
Xavier
In copy:
Tripti Sinha, ICANN Board chair
Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board member, chair of the Board Caucus on the Grant Program
Sally Costerton, ICANN President and CEO
David Olive, SVP Policy Development and Support
Giovanni Seppia, VP Implementation Operations
Xavier Calvez
ICANN
*SVP Planning and CFO*
*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300*
*Los Angeles, California 90094*
*USA *
*Office phone:* +1 310 301 5800
*Cell phone:* +1 805 312 0052
*Skype:* Xavier.calvez.icann
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.