May 2016 - Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds

Auction Proceeds DT Meeting 05/05/16: Notes, Outcomes and Action items
by David Tait May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Dear All Please find below the outcomes and action items from today’s meeting: Item 2. Update from Sam Eisner (ICANN Legal) re: Briefing note on fiduciary and legal constraints Legal Note lays out both legal and financial/fiduciary constraints which are often closely related. Intention to provide a tool useful to both DT and future CCWG. Even within 501(c)(3) entities ICANN is somewhat unusual. Initial disbursements must be consistent with ICANN's mission, thereafter the recipient must also utilize those funds for the purposes for which they were allocated. The mechanism for ensuring this compliance will require further elaboration, however, these principles will have to considered at every stage of the work. This should not bind the DT or WG to a particular model of allocating/managing the funds. In chartering WG the DT could require that any solutions which the WG determines appropriate should to the best extent possible be globally neutral and avoid favoring any region or country from which an applicant may originate. At what stage does consideration of which particular categories of applicants (i.e. other 501(3)(c) or individuals) will be able to receive funds have to take place? Processes put in place by DT/WG should not exclude particular actors. What would differentiation of the awarding of these funds from the ordinary awarding of contracts by ICANN to contractors within the ecosystem? This can be very different from normal contracting/operations as there is no expectation of return but rather to achieve objectives "consistent with" ICANN's mission. The meaning of "consistent with" may require to be further elaborated. Important for DT to highlight the broad principles to be complied with but these should be primarily resolved by the contract awarding the funds. Three work products for DT/WG to potentially produce: (a) Draft charter (b) Principles for use of funds and (c) Final proposal on utilization of funds. Consideration could be given to requiring that the WG should put in a conflict of interest policy which is on a par with the most stringent within ICANN i.e. at board level. Will the WG (a) design a process for distributing funds, or (b) also narrow the scope of fund allocation, or (c) actually make determinations about funding decisions? This will impact upon the degree of statement of interest/conflict of interest policy which should apply. DT needs to be 100% clear on whether or not CWG is confined to process / structure NOT disbursement. Requirements for transparency/representation may be compromised in the context of a WG which allocated funds by stringent conflict of interest policies. This perhaps promotes a position in which the WG does not undertake this work. Action Items: (i) SE to map and extract key points from the Legal Note which must go in the Charter; (ii) EM as chair of audit committee to further review points raised in Legal Note and revert on constraints which might exist; (iii) all DT to review latest draft of the charter and provide input; (iv) EM and AH to ask Board to provide input on "support directly" v "consistent with" ICANN's mission as to the possible limitation on use of funds. What discretion is available to the DT?; (v) all DT to complete review of sub-team consideration of public comments; and (vi) EM and RM to distill general principles from public comments Future Discussion points: how specific will the Charter be on the role of the WG in dispersing funds and what are the accompanying requirements DT provisional determination: WG will not undertake the disbursement of funds directly and instead frame principles, processes and high level allocation of funds The following items were not dealt with due to insufficient time: 3. Finalize review of public comments and identification of which items should be considered in relation to the development of the charter (see latest version attached) 4. Review and consideration of next steps in relation to charter section questions and example language (see latest version attached) 5. Helsinki meeting planning 6. Confirm next meeting – 12 May at 21.00 UTC David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

2 1

mp3 and attendance new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team 05 May 2016
by Terri Agnew May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team held on 05 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-05may16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt-cwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/px6AAw Attendees: ALAC Alan Greenberg ASO Sylvia Cadena ccNSO Will not be participating in the drafting team GAC Olga Cavalli GNSO Jonathan Robinson RSSAC SSAC Russ Mundy Lyman Chapin Board Board Liaisons Erika Mann Asha Hemrajani Board appointed staff advisors Samantha Eisner Apologies: none ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lauren Allison Vinciane Koenigsfeld Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint Gery David Tait Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 05 May 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter Drafting Team held on Thursday, 05 May 2016 Olga Cavalli - GAC:Hi Terri can you enable my audio on adobe? Terri Agnew:Hi Olga, yes, mics will be active. This call will begin in 30 minutes. Olga Cavalli - GAC:sure thanks Terri Agnew:Mics are now active Erika Mann:I'm in but I think someone put me again on forced mute Terri Agnew:Hi Erika, you will need to active your mic. Directions are on screen now Erika Mann:Terri, the problem is always the same, 'someone' puts me when I enter on mute. I can see the curser moving. I mentioned this before. On my end, I'm fine, not muted. Terri Agnew:Would you like the op to dial out to you on the telephone? Erika Mann:I re-changed settings on my end as well, let's try if it works Sylvia Cadena 2:A lot of echo coming from Jonathan's line Asha Hemrajani:Good evening RussMundy-SSAC:I'm dialed in to the audio bridge but am not hearing anything Asha Hemrajani:lot of echo when Terri speaks on the audio bridge RussMundy-SSAC:dialed back in am now on Sylvia Cadena 2:A lot of echo Sylvia Cadena 2:Thank you Terri. Thanks Jonathan, no comments to the agenda from my side. Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree, Erika Mann:Sam - there were two comments from Alan as well Jonathan Robinson:That's helpful Sam. It speaks to the ongoing chain of accountability of a donation Olga Cavalli:sorry I had to change my coputer Asha Hemrajani:Yes I think Sam has already addressed Alan's two comments via email already, but worthwhile to discuss those again after we go through Jonathan's comments. Erika Mann:I raise my hand Sylvia Cadena 2:I also have raised my hand Erika Mann:Lauren/Terry - you have to unmute me! Terri Agnew:@Erika, I will unmute you Terri Agnew:@Erika, I have muted you again Erika Mann:Thanks Terri Erika Mann:Jonathan, I like to come back Sylvia Cadena 2:I realy agree with that. Very important to address it as you so clearly point it out. Asha Hemrajani:Agree Jonathan, that is something we should pick up on again Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree with Alan. Olga Cavalli:+ 1 to Alan Erika Mann:I think we need a reference in the Charter that the allocation of the funds must be appropriate to the mission/core values and must the respect the tax-excempt status ... Asha Hemrajani:Sylvia, I cannot make out what you are saying - your voice is very muffled Alan Greenberg:If I understood Russ's comment correctly, I have the same concern. If we must narrowly adhere to ICANN 's mission, I am not sure how we differentiate from our regular work and what this money will be used for. Alan Greenberg:That is why I asked about the AG reference to "doing good things with regard to the Internet" where I thought we had our largest leveage. Alan Greenberg:leverage RussMundy-SSAC:yes, Alan, that is my concern RussMundy-SSAC:although it may not be feasible, the informal guidance I have from ssac members is that doing things for the "good of the Internet" is a highly desirable result Erika Mann:Jonathan, I have a direct point to make Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Russ +1 RussMundy-SSAC:but may not fully fit ICANN mission Jonathan Robinson:@Russ. "Consitent with" may be the helpful phrase here RussMundy-SSAC:Thanks Jonathan & Sam, this is very helpful Alan Greenberg:@Jonathan. YES, that would be very good. COnsistant with is FAR better than furthering the mission. Alan Greenberg:My poster child for something that we should be able to do is fund Internet Exchange Points. There is great value to the internet in developing regions, and is certainly not counter to our mission, but it is IN our mission. Olga Cavalli:good point Alan Asha Hemrajani:I am having difficulty understanding Sylvia, could someone summarize what she is saying? Alan Greenberg:Saying that the requirement to explain how a project meets out mission is a responsibility of the applicant to document in application. Alan Greenberg:Not to be specified in detail by us or ccwg Erika Mann:Agree Alan Asha Hemrajani:Thanks Alan for transcribing Sylvia's point - yes agree with that. Sylvia Cadena 2:Thanks Alan :) Sylvia Cadena 2:My only comment there, will be to expand that to involvement on political activities and lobbying not only on the US space, but also globally. Asha Hemrajani:No worries Sam! totally understand! Erika Mann:Sylvia is right Asha Hemrajani:Yes agree Sylvia Sylvia Cadena 2:Yes, fully agree with spending more time and do a deep review to provide clear guidelines for the conflict of interests. Agree with Asha. The more that can be done on that front the better Alan Greenberg:Are we talking about the individuals on the CCWG, or those making the funding decisions? Samantha Eisner:Apologies again for the background noise here. 1300 UTC calls are normally quiet times in my house! Erika Mann:Asha, state their conflict of interest but not their interest ... tiny difference but relevant Asha Hemrajani:@Alan, I would think both Erika Mann:Alan - only those involved in the dstribution of the fund Sylvia Cadena 2:I think on both Alan. Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree with Asha. Declare your interest, not only the conflict of interest Sylvia Cadena 2:I believe that will be to decide on the process. Sylvia Cadena 2:100% agree with Alan. Erika Mann:Agree with Alan Sylvia Cadena 2:The CCWG should not be the ones to make decisions. RussMundy-SSAC:I fully agree with what Alan is saying Sylvia Cadena 2:Thanks Alan. Agree. Olga Cavalli:+1 to Alan Sylvia Cadena 2:I understand, but due to the amount of the money at play, it is very important to be very stringent and point any potential risks Erika Mann:The Echo is on my end Sylvia Cadena 2:Yes, that is my opinion Erika. We should include on the charter that the CCWG should focus on the process. Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree with Asha. Asha Hemrajani:+1 Alan Jonathan Robinson:@Alan. Agreed, this is an overarching document. that will flow through all phases of the project. Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree. Asha Hemrajani:yes agreed! We have yet to make this fundamental decision Asha Hemrajani:ok Alan, need your transcribing again Asha Hemrajani:Sylvia sounds super muffled to me for some reason :-( Sylvia Cadena 2:Sorry, will type it here Asha Hemrajani:Thanks Sylvia Sylvia Cadena 2:CCWG to focus on process, outcome to be the recommendation about what mechanism to choose to actaully allocate the funds. Each mechanism has different rules (example foundation vs endowment) so that will be very messy for the CCWG as they will be playing by all sorts of rules Asha Hemrajani:yes indeed Jonathan, this is an overarching point Sylvia Cadena 2:Thanks for extending it, really appreciate to be able to go through in enough detail to make progress Sylvia Cadena 2:100% agree with that. Rules should be drafted to allow for different types of organization to benefit /access funds Jonathan Robinson:Thinking of procees / structure / mechanics as outputs from the CWG? Asha Hemrajani:@Jonathan, I am not so sure we should rule out some level of disbursement at this stage...it could be very high level of disbursement? eg splitting the funds into eg 3 big buckets? Sylvia Cadena 2:I don't think we should discuss disbursements Sylvia Cadena 2:That should be for the CCWG to determine in my opinion. Sylvia Cadena 2:No need to apologize for that :) Sylvia Cadena 2:I already explained on my comment before, that it is the responsibility of the applicant to explain how their proposal fits or not with ICANN's mission. I think that by changing the order, you also change priorities. I do not agree Sylvia Cadena 2:It is important to have the ICANN's mission first, so that it is clear that gives scope for the funding to be allocated. Samantha Eisner:ICANN would also have an obligation to review if the mission is furthered, as actions outside of ICANN's mission could subjet ICANN to an IRP Erika Mann:Jonathan I like to say something Samantha Eisner:The applicant's explanation of how the mission is met would be a very important item in consideration, and I do agree that it should be a responsibility of the applicant to explain how the proposal fits the mission Asha Hemrajani:@sylvia re discussing disbursements, I did not mean the DT should discuss disbursements RussMundy-SSAC:I support Asha's suggestion Samantha Eisner:I'd be happy to help support efforts at extraction Asha Hemrajani:I meant that we cannot at this stage rule out that the CCWG does not do disbursements Sylvia Cadena 2:Me too, happy to help with those efforts, if there is some support from someone else Asha Hemrajani:+1 Erika Sylvia Cadena 2:I say we should rule out that they approve disbursements Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Asha I would be very worried about convening a CCWG that would directly make disbursements, rather than design the process(es) by which disbursements will be made. Erika Mann:Jonathan- yes, even better Asha Hemrajani:Yes Jonathan, makes sense RussMundy-SSAC:+1 Lyman Sylvia Cadena 2:Will do that Jonathan. On the google doc? as comments on the word file? Erika Mann:Jonathan, one more point, we need to agree on guiding principles Russ and I identified from the comments we reviewed Asha Hemrajani:@lyman, I agree that the CCWG has to design the processes & structure. I was referring to a high level of disbursements eg could there be a situation where the CCWG decides to split the funds into foundation #1, foundation #2 and foundation #3 (example only). This is what I would call a high level of disbursement Sylvia Cadena 2:I have my hand raised Erika Mann:Agree with Alan Sylvia Cadena 2:Those will be recommendations, not disbursements. It will depend on what mechanisms are decided Asha Hemrajani:Alan is spot on - we need to get the fundamental decisions out of the way first Sylvia Cadena 2:Consistent or in line should be there. Not directly as stand there. Erika Mann:We will do this Erika Mann:Sylvia!!! Alan Greenberg:If we are tied to directly support, that is a game changer in my mind Asha Hemrajani:i got disconnected Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Asha What concerns me is the way in which the selection of members for the CCWG might be affected by the opportunity for the CCWG itself to direct the allocation of funds - even at a high level. Asha Hemrajani:could I have a call out Asha Hemrajani:please to +6566852483 RussMundy-SSAC:Perhaps it might be better to use the term "dispursement" for funding going to an "end party" and "allocation" for funds going into some "process", e.g., a foundation Erika Mann:Asha - I took note about the comments Jonathan made when you were disconnected Asha Hemrajani:Thanks Erika Erika Mann:+ Russ Asha Hemrajani:good point Russ Sylvia Cadena 2:ok Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Russ That might work Asha Hemrajani:ok back in again Jonathan Robinson:@Russ. Thank-you. Helpful distinction to make between allocation / apportionment adn disbursement Asha Hemrajani:I see your point Lyman Asha Hemrajani:yes apportionment is a good way to describe it Jonathan Asha Hemrajani:the guiding principles will have to come out from Sam's split into the categories RussMundy-SSAC:Yes, I'm fine with this Erika Mann:Russ, are you fine with this? Asha Hemrajani:split of her document I mean Sylvia Cadena 2:Agree with Jonathan, and apologies for being silence on email, but commit to sent comments by email on the document that Jonathan's shared Erika Mann:Jonathan can you repeat your quesiton Sylvia Cadena 2:Not me. Not to allocate. Sylvia Cadena 2:It was an old hand, sorry. Olga Cavalli:not me Sylvia Cadena 2:No, the CWG should not be responsible for allocating funds Erika Mann:Not me Sylvia Cadena 2:That is not an allocation. That will be apportionment Asha Hemrajani:No, I had not thought the CCWG would do the detailed level of disbursements, but I did envision that the CCWG could do some high level allocations Erika Mann:Jonathan +1 RussMundy-SSAC:Jonathan +1 Sylvia Cadena 2:+1 Asha Hemrajani:very useful discussion indeed Samantha Eisner:+1 Sylvia Cadena 2:Very useful, thank you all Olga Cavalli:bye thanks! RussMundy-SSAC:very good call Sylvia Cadena 2:Bye thanks RussMundy-SSAC:bye Asha Hemrajani:Bye Erika Mann:Thanks!

1 0

Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds DT
by Marika Konings May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 5 May at 13.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team meeting Thursday 5 May at 13.00 UTC 1. Roll call & Welcome 2. Update from Samantha Eisner on briefing note on fiduciary and legal constraints 3. Finalise review of public comments and identification of which items should be considered in relation to the development of the charter (see latest version attached) 4. Review and consideration of next steps in relation to charter section questions and example language (see latest version attached) 5. Helsinki meeting planning 6. Confirm next meeting 12 May at 21.00 UTC

5 7

For your review and input - charter questions and example language
by Marika Konings May 4, 2016

May 4, 2016

Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find attached the updated Charter Questions and Example Language¹ document in which we¹ve added some input in relation to current practices and recent experiences for each of the questions that will hopefully facilitate the DT¹s deliberations. You are encouraged to review this document ahead of next week¹s meeting and share your perspectives on the different questions, especially if those differ from the identified current practices. Best regards, Marika

3 3

Outcomes and action points from Auction proceeds meeting
by David Tait May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

Dear All I am pleased to attach the Outcomes and Actions Points from the meeting of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team F2F Meeting which took place on 10 March 2016. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 2