June 2016 - Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds

Re: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] FW: New gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Sylvia Cadena June 29, 2016

June 29, 2016

Thanks Marika. It will be great to have a bit of information about the session, in a condensed form to be able to work through it. My connection here is not that good to be able to follow the webcast or stream video -sorry–. Glad to know people agree that the CCWG should not be part of the disbursement process. It seems that it was not that clear for those that make the remarks though. I also agree with the need to define a finite time for the CCWG to work, and I hope we can add that to our future discussions. Warm regards, Sylvia From: <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 5:26 PM To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] FW: New gTLD Auction Proceeds For your information, please find another comment below following yesterday’s session. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. From: Greg Kapfer <kapfer(a)isoc.org<mailto:kapfer@isoc.org>> Date: Wednesday 29 June 2016 at 07:16 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Greg Kapfer <kapfer(a)isoc.org<mailto:kapfer@isoc.org>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Marika, Thanks for hosting the community discussion yesterday. I understand that follow-on comments should be directed to you, and thereby to the Charter Drafting Committee. In the discussion, one participant recommended that the CCWG have a finite life, and that distribution decisions not be made in such a way that the distributions be strung out over time. A second speaker suggested that principle should not preclude distribution to recipients/programs that seek long-term goals and funding mechanisms that foster lasting impact for the Internet community. This speaker also noted that these principles need not be mutually exclusive. The Internet Society agrees with both recommendations to the Charter Drafting Committee. It would be a monumental task to marshal the tens of millions of dollars in the New gTLD Auction Proceeds over any short-term period. Examples of such funding and program vehicles are: · Capacity Building within developing countries, in which funds could stimulate partnerships with governments, equipment donors, and civil society. · Contribution to existing endowments legally designed to maintain the contributed corpus to ensure a long-term stable funding tool. These are areas of interest that the Internet Society has, and will continue to, pursue. The former could be attained through designated funds for this purpose. The latter is represented by the existing Endowment for the Sustainability of the IETF<http://sustainietf.org/> dedicated to ensuring the long-term funding for the IETF in its standard setting work. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide input into this important process. Greg Kapfer Chief Financial Officer Internet Society ————————————————————————— Looking for something interesting to read? Get to know our Development Program at https://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/brochures/files/APNIC-Deve… ————————————————————————— Sylvia Cadena | Community Partnerships Specialist | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> ISIF Asia Information Society Innovation Fund sip: sylvia(a)voip.apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@voip.apnic.net> skype: sylviacadena https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia Twitter @ISIF_Asia ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia<http://discover.isif.asia/> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 http://www.apnic.net<http://www.apnic.net/> | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | https://blog.apnic.net/ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

2 2

FW: New gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Marika Konings June 29, 2016

June 29, 2016

For your information, please find another comment below following yesterday’s session. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. From: Greg Kapfer <kapfer(a)isoc.org> Date: Wednesday 29 June 2016 at 07:16 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Greg Kapfer <kapfer(a)isoc.org> Subject: Re: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Marika, Thanks for hosting the community discussion yesterday. I understand that follow-on comments should be directed to you, and thereby to the Charter Drafting Committee. In the discussion, one participant recommended that the CCWG have a finite life, and that distribution decisions not be made in such a way that the distributions be strung out over time. A second speaker suggested that principle should not preclude distribution to recipients/programs that seek long-term goals and funding mechanisms that foster lasting impact for the Internet community. This speaker also noted that these principles need not be mutually exclusive. The Internet Society agrees with both recommendations to the Charter Drafting Committee. It would be a monumental task to marshal the tens of millions of dollars in the New gTLD Auction Proceeds over any short-term period. Examples of such funding and program vehicles are: · Capacity Building within developing countries, in which funds could stimulate partnerships with governments, equipment donors, and civil society. · Contribution to existing endowments legally designed to maintain the contributed corpus to ensure a long-term stable funding tool. These are areas of interest that the Internet Society has, and will continue to, pursue. The former could be attained through designated funds for this purpose. The latter is represented by the existing Endowment for the Sustainability of the IETF<http://sustainietf.org/> dedicated to ensuring the long-term funding for the IETF in its standard setting work. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide input into this important process. Greg Kapfer Chief Financial Officer Internet Society

1 0

FW: Auctions proceeds comment
by Marika Konings June 28, 2016

June 28, 2016

Dear All, As further comments come in, I will forward them to the mailing list, but I will also capture them in the notes I took during the session so that you have a complete record of the input provided so that it can be reviewed at one of next meetings of the drafting team. Best regards, Marika On 28/06/16 16:35, "Matthew Shears" <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: Hi Marika Could you be sure to note my comment in the chat from the meting today: matthew shears: I don't think that te CCWG should be involved at all in anything related to funds disbursement - the CCWG should propose mechanisms and/or structures that would be independent of the CCWG (in other words once establihsed the CCWG should be dissolved so as to avoid anyu conflict of interest) Thanks. Matthew -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears(a)cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

1 0

Slide deck for cross-community session
by Marika Konings June 28, 2016

June 28, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached the final slide deck for tomorrow’s cross-community session on new gTLD Auction Proceeds. The session is scheduled on Tuesday 27 June from 15.15 – 16.45 Helsinki time. For further details, please see http://sched.co/7NE0. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

2 1

Re: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated slide deck
by Sylvia Cadena June 27, 2016

June 27, 2016

Thanks Marika for sharing the slides and the latest draft of the charter. Best of luck to Jonathan and all present there to share the work so far at the cross-community session. I am looking forward to know how the meeting went, and what contributions/questions from the floor can be incorporated to the process so that the charter can be finalized soon. I like very much the progress done on the text regarding expert advice. Fully support that. Only small detail there is that it will be important to mention there that expert advisors should also disclose any conflict of interest. I am very sorry about my lack of participation to the last 2 meetings or to share comments before, but I really have to express my concern about 2 important issues that were changed during your discussions over the last 2 meetings that I do not agree with, which were already discussed in previous meetings. I have argued to support both issues below in all the previous meetings I was able to attend, as well as documents shared with the mailing list. * I do not agree with the use of the words “non inconsistent” when referring to ICANN’s mission. Fund allocations must be in line with ICANN’s mission as that is key not only to preserve the tax status, but also to support communities that can hardly access other sources of funding (like traditional donors) as they do not understand the nature of the technical challenges those projects or organizations are trying to solve/address. For example, it is very hard for organization maintaining root-servers, IXPs, developing standards (just as an example) to apply for traditional funding. The auction proceeds provide a unique opportunity to support the stability of the Internet not only at the infrastructure level. Projects/organizations applying for funds should be able to articulate how their proposal is actually in line with ICANN’s mission. The previous word in use was “furtherance”, which was already wide enough. By changing it to “non consistent” the text has an even weaker approach to support ICANN’s mission. * The text about diversity was modified, and the mention to the 3 communities that ICANN serves was removed. I do not support that change. It is very important that the diversity focus also applies to the communities ICANN serves. Also, just wanted to point out, that as we are pushing so hard for disclosure of conflict of interest, it will be important to have all our SOI updated on the DT wiki, just to be consistent with what we are talking about. There are a few there hat are missing. Warm regards, Sylvia From: <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 24 June 2016 at 11:23 PM To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:dt-cwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated slide deck Dear All, Please find attached for your review an updated version of the slide deck. Note that we are still working on the process & objectives for this session slide but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to review this version and encourage you to share any additional questions you think need to be called out as part of the cross-community session. You will see that there are still slides with the verbatim text of the charter in the deck, but those are merely there for background and/or when needed during the discussion. Looking forward to receiving your input. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. ————————————————————————— Looking for something interesting to read? Get to know our Development Program at https://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/brochures/files/APNIC-Deve… ————————————————————————— Sylvia Cadena | Community Partnerships Specialist | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> ISIF Asia Information Society Innovation Fund sip: sylvia(a)voip.apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@voip.apnic.net> skype: sylviacadena https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia Twitter @ISIF_Asia ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia<http://discover.isif.asia/> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 http://www.apnic.net<http://www.apnic.net/> | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | https://blog.apnic.net/ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

2 1

For your review - updated slide deck
by Marika Konings June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached for your review an updated version of the slide deck. Note that we are still working on the process & objectives for this session slide but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to review this version and encourage you to share any additional questions you think need to be called out as part of the cross-community session. You will see that there are still slides with the verbatim text of the charter in the deck, but those are merely there for background and/or when needed during the discussion. Looking forward to receiving your input. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

1 0

Notes and Outcomes from DT Meeting 23 June 2016
by David Tait June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Dear All Please find below the notes and outcomes from yesterday’s DT meeting: 2. Review latest version of the charter Notes: Document prepared today will be placed before community in Helsinki and then, following review of the comments received and possible updates, submitted to the Chartering Organisations for their consideration. Section 2: Problem statement Wording modified to reflect the views of community on empowering CCWG. Does not have material effect. Section 2: Scope Bullet 4, not expected that conflicts of interest will be avoided but rather dealt with appropriately such as stating potential interests upfront. There is a necessity to recognise that conflicts of interest are normal but will require to be dealt with differently, as applicable, between participation in the CCWG and funds dispersal stages in recognition of this. Finalised proposed text- "Take all appropriate measures to deal with conflicts of interest which includes disclosure as part of CCWG process as well as avoiding conflicts at subsequent stages" Bullet 5 and Bullet 1 (Constraints) Insert the term "not inconsistent" to mirror previous language. Bullet 5 (Constraints) unusually high standards on conflict of interest should apply to this work but this should be placed before the Community for discussion in Helsinki. This should be flagged as a unique and unusual feature of this charter by virtue of the large amount of funds involved. Language to be inserted "...which will include certain mandatory disclosures specified by the DT." This is an item the DT will flag for discussion in Helsinki and return to after the Helsinki meeting. Page 5, bullet 1 reword as "Have sufficient interest (and ideally expertise)..." 3. Preparation for cross-community session in Helsinki Notes: Slide deck should contain the following: *specific inputs which the DT seeks from the Community; and *process/progress/where next slide. 4. Confirm next meeting following Helsinki No date set, this will be discussed following the Helsinki meeting. Kind regards and safe travels to Helsinki, David 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 0

For your review - latest version of CCWG Charter
by Marika Konings June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

Dear All, Following our call today, please find attached the latest version of the CCWG Charter. To facilitate review, I’ve accepted all previous changes and comments - in this version you will only find those changes made as a result of the deliberations during today’s meeting in redline. Please share any further comments and/or edits you may have by Friday 24 June COB – following that we will ‘freeze’ this version for review and discussion during the cross-community session in Helsinki. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

1 0

mp3 and attendance new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team 23 June 2016
by Terri Agnew June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team held on 23 June 2016 at 11:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-23jun16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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 None ccNSO Will not be participating in the drafting team GAC Olga Cavalli GNSO Tony Harris Jonathan Robinson RSSAC Brad Verd SSAC Russ Mundy Lyman Chapin Board Board Liaisons Erika Mann Asha Hemrajani Board appointed staff advisors none Apologies: Sylvia Cadena Samantha Eisner (Board appointed staff advisor) ICANN staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund 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, 23 June 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter Drafting Team held on Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 11:00 UTC Erika Mann:I joined the call ... checking now to test Adobe audio Erika Mann:checking Olga Cavalli:Hello all! Erika Mann:Audio seems not to be working ... Olga Cavalli:there is audio now Olga Cavalli:yes tony! Asha Hemrajani:I have activated my mic, but it does not seem to be working Jonathan Robinson:Hello All. I am now in. Erika Mann:I had the same problem Asha. Just try again. click on phone and then you see the options. Alan Greenberg:A bit early for you Terri! Erika Mann:Jonathan +1 Asha Hemrajani:agreed Erika Mann:+1 - good formulation Asha Hemrajani:fine with "from the perspective of the Board" Asha Hemrajani:I think you need both "avoid" and "deal with" Asha Hemrajani:not possible to avoid completely Erika Mann:+1 (conflict of interest - I'm fine with this) Erika Mann:Maybe in add adding one word we are fine, how about 'take all appropriated measures ...' (?) Marika Konings:Something like this: Take appropriate measures to deal with conflicts of interest, which includes disclosure as part of CCWG deliberations as well as avoiding conflicts of interest in subsequent recommendations. Alan Greenberg:disclose and/or avoid as applicable Marika Konings:the latter should probably be avoiding conflicts of interest as part of subsequent recommendations Marika Konings:I've lost audio - will reconnect to AC Marika Konings:it's back Alan Greenberg:that's fine with me. Asha Hemrajani:that would work with me Erika Mann:+1 fine with me Marika Konings:got it Asha Hemrajani:i prefer consistent with as well Asha Hemrajani:where are you now Jonathan Asha Hemrajani:got it Olga Cavalli:im lost in the document which page now? Erika Mann:Russ, thought the same about consistent ... take just one wording Asha Hemrajani:@olga page 3 Olga Cavalli:thanks Erika Mann:We have the board meeting tomorrow RussMundy-SSAC:I think at this point, my preference is to drop the "fully" term from the second use Erika Mann:Correct Jonathan RussMundy-SSAC:I'd be fine with "not inconsistent" Asha Hemrajani:re consistency with the mission as we will be presenting to the Board tomorrow afternoon, we should be able to give you feedback afterwards Erika Mann:Jonathan - we should take this to the community Alan Greenberg:Which conflict instance are we on? Erika Mann:Alan - the yellow highlighted part Tony Harris:Agree with Asha Tony Harris:Change policy for requirement Asha Hemrajani:I like the question that Marika proposed (as an example) Erika Mann:conflict of interest POLICY would have to be defined indeed, agree with Tony, requirement is probably more appropriate Alan Greenberg:We have already mentioned it in the GOALS and leadin to SCOPE. Thisis the third reference! Asha Hemrajani:@alan true but this is important Asha Hemrajani:@alan I am ok with reducing the number of references Alan Greenberg:Andyet anotherreference to come... Asha Hemrajani:but we need to be very specific - that we need high standards re COI - so the CCWG should be populated appropriately Asha Hemrajani:Agree Jonathan Alan Greenberg:Population of the CCWG is one area where, if we think CoI is an issue, we SHOULDbe specific. Erika Mann:We should have few but very clear references to this topic Asha Hemrajani:+1 Alan - this is something that needs to be further clarified Erika Mann:Agree with Alan RussMundy-SSAC:Just to raise an example "Will there be any differentiation between CCWG "Members" & "Contributors" ? (if they exit) Asha Hemrajani:@jonathan, so can we add something about the population of the CCWG? Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. It seems to me that this is part of the prosepctive recommendation we make and the feedback we seek. Marika Konings:Asha - correct, CO appointed members, participants and observers are the current categories Marika Konings:currently SOI requirements are the same for members and participants Marika Konings:no SOI required for observers Alan Greenberg:I think we will be on reallyshaky ground if we limit participants and we have alreadysaid that part and members are for most purposes equal. Marika Konings:currently participants are also asked to declare their interests in the work RussMundy-SSAC:@Marika: thanks for the proper categories Asha Hemrajani:that is the problem Alan - in the CCWG Accountability - members & participants are on par Marika Konings:although there is currently no policing of SOIs Asha Hemrajani:so that standards should apply to both members and participants Asha Hemrajani:but not observers Erika Mann:Exactly Erika Mann:Jonathan, exactly, that't the way I would see it Asha Hemrajani:Jonathan +1 Erika Mann:Members/participants ... then keep the same language Asha Hemrajani:no need to distinguish between members and participants RussMundy-SSAC:So do we need to differentiate between requiring a Conflict of Interest requirement from those that need a Statement of Interest? Terri Agnew:Welcome Lyman Asha Hemrajani:@russ I think everyone needs to put in a SoI Asha Hemrajani:with mandatory disclosures for members and participants Erika Mann:Disclosure requirements are good RussMundy-SSAC:It does seem to me that we should stick with a requirement for Statement of Interest from all but not require anyone to submit Conflict of Interest at this point? Asha Hemrajani:yes and my suggestion is to have some text to go to the community with Marika Konings:we can update the section that talks about requiring an SOI Asha Hemrajani:happy to work with you on the draft Marika Konings:which is further down in the charter Marika Konings:to clarify that the SOI would also need to be accompanied by certain mandatory disclosures Asha Hemrajani:where are you now? Erika Mann:Jonathan plus 1 Asha Hemrajani:ok Asha Hemrajani:ah so you mean adding to the yellow text Asha Hemrajani:sounds good Erika Mann:Yes, Asha, adding to the yellow part bverd (RSSAC):Mandatory implies there are implications if you don't provide them. Do we specify what those implications are? Asha Hemrajani:I agree Jonathan, we will have to revisit this after Helsinki Jonathan Robinson:@bverd. Good point. IS disclosure sufficient or will that (at some point) preclude participation? Alan Greenberg:For the CCWG ALL we can do is disclosure. Otherwise we need a process for vetting membership and prarticipation. Jonathan Robinson:@Marika. That's a good suggestion. I see no reasono why not to include draft language along those lines. Provison of SOI is amandatory Marika Konings:I believe it is noted further down, although it does not include what happens if the information is not provided Asha Hemrajani:@brad I think there has to be some threshold for precluding participation otherwise what is the point of going through this exercise? If there are potential members who come from an organization who will definitely apply for the funds, then the CCWG has to make a call as to whether or not this person can join the CCWG Asha Hemrajani:we are on page 4 Erika Mann:Page 5 or 4 ? Erika Mann:Got you Jonathan, happy to withdraw my objection Tony Harris:Erika has made a good point, funding expertise Asha Hemrajani:+1 Alan Jonathan Robinson:@Alan - agreed - change to interest (and ideally expertise?) Erika Mann:Fine RussMundy-SSAC:I like this change of wording Marika Konings:I believe that is in line with current practice (can if an CO wants to) Erika Mann:Good proposal Jonathan Asha Hemrajani:agreed bverd (RSSAC):+1 Olga Cavalli:ok Olga Cavalli:please remind me date time Marika Konings:For the organisation of the session, we would need to know how many people (and ideally whom) would be sitting up front Erika Mann:Agree Jonathan about format and presentation ... it would be good indeed to antizipate questions Asha Hemrajani:I agree with your suggestion. I will be attending Erika Mann:Yes, I agree Jonathan Marika Konings:@Olga - Tuesday from 15.15 - 16.45 (see http://sched.co/7NE0) Marika Konings:Do you want to go through the whole presentation + questions and then open it up, or pause at specific sections & questions? Olga Cavalli:agree with asha Marika Konings:my question was more related to the actual session :-) Marika Konings:I can add a status of the process slide up front Erika Mann:Russ, we can't hear you Jonathan Robinson:@Marika; PROCESS ADN POINT IN PROCESS / STAtus Asha Hemrajani:@marika Lauren has a process slide drafted, might be of use here. Perhaps you could touch base with her Erika Mann:Good point Russ, we have to mention this as well Marika Konings:@Asha - thanks, I will check in with her Marika Konings:@Jonathan - yes, process and point in process Marika Konings:happy to bullet but was concerned that it would lose some of the details as not everyone may have taken the time to review the charter ahead of the meeting RussMundy-SSAC:I agree with Alan's point that we should mention this possibility Erika Mann:My advise is not to do this but keep this procedure limited to the AP fund Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Alan +1 RussMundy-SSAC:I think that we also mentioned that the CCWG could design a "longer lived" process Erika Mann:... I raised my hand as well Jonathan Alan Greenberg:By saying that the processes *could* be used post this $100m, we are delinking the usage from the source which I think is an important issue. Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. Yes. Be good for Marika to get that from Lauren. IN fact any relevant (non-confidential) board materials on this subject could be helpful Jonathan Robinson:@All. Shall we ask the community on this one? Once off or more longvity? Alan Greenberg:This is a one-of disbursement. But the process could be applicable in the future. Alan Greenberg:If we find this process has worked and there is more money. Erika Mann:Jonathan, I raised my hand Asha Hemrajani:@alan, it could be if there is another pool of funds, the new group set up to look into disbursement may choose to re-use the processes that this particular CCWG has come up with, but they may choose not to. Asha Hemrajani:they may choose to improve on it, based on lessons learned Alan Greenberg:@Asha, agreed. In fact, I am optimistic that the CCWG will include a review process to verify whether the disbursement process is working well. It could even trigger changes before the funds are fully used. Asha Hemrajani:I see what Erika is coming from - I agree with her - perhaps we should not open this debate at this moment. Alan Greenberg:@Erika, Im happyto be silent. Asha Hemrajani:closed to the auction proceeds of the current gTLD round. Asha Hemrajani:sounds good Erika Mann:I'm fine with this Jonathan Erika Mann:Russ, you are muted Jonathan Robinson:Have to wrap up in 5 mins. Apologies. Erika Mann:Agree Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Russ Is it useful to distinguish between the group (a CCWG) and the process? Alan Greenberg:We have done a lot... Happy to close now RussMundy-SSAC:@Lyman: yes, it might be useful to differentiate them RussMundy-SSAC:good meeting - thanks to all Asha Hemrajani:@lyman good point Erika Mann:Safe travels all Asha Hemrajani:Thanks all Asha Hemrajani:bye!

1 0

Reminder: Please review latest version of charter
by Marika Konings June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

Dear All, As a reminder, please review the latest version of the charter (see attached) and provide any further comments and/or edits you may have ahead of Thursday’s meeting. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. From: <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 17:50 To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items new gTLD Auction Proceeds DT meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes & action items for today’s meeting. Please also see the attached revised Charter dated 16 June that captures the changes agreed to during today’s meeting. Note that I have left the comments in, but have noted how they have been addressed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes 16 June Meeting These high-level notes are designed to help DT members 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/1SmAAw. 23 June Meeting confirmed for 1100 UTC with DT members expected to review the current edits and plan to finalize the charter during the 23 June meeting. Target is to have draft charter ready for discussion in Helsinki 1. Briefing note on fiduciary and legal constraint: a. Update from Sam on modifications to briefing note based on DT input · Made some formatting changes and updated with the comments that came in, but not much substance changed. · Avoid limiting to US entities via geographic limitations. · There is a meeting of the ICANN Board on this issue in Helsinki with a full report about the work we have done. · It would be good to hear from the Board even informally prior to the public meeting. Action Item #1: 1) Sam will circulate a redlined version. 2) DT members should review the document prior to the meeting on 23 June. Erika / Asha to revert on: i. input from board colleagues or external advisors on constraints (audit or tax) on the use of proceeds might be (if at all) and/or ii. to what extent ICANN’s mission constrains the use of funds. · Asha and Erika will know more on the 24th after the Board meeting re: legal and fiduciary responsibility, but mostly covered in the document Sam sent. Similar to what we discussed, such as how to integrate the mission statement, diversity, role of the Board, type of projects, etc. · Re: Logistics -- trying to pin down a draft of the charter ahead of the meeting. No opportunity to review anything from the Board with the group from the 24th meeting, but won't impact the version of the charter to be published after the meeting on 23 June. 2. Review draft charter which has been developed based on deliberations an input received to date General Note: Changes redlined in the 07 June document are taken as read unless noted otherwise. Scope: Agreed to Sylvia’s suggested comment. Action Item #2: Change "in furtherance of" to "in line with". Appointments of Chairs: Sylvia added Alan's previous comment” “Those accepting leadership positions in the CCWG will be taking on substantially higher levels of commitment than that of Members and Participants.” Change accepted. Dissolution: "CCWG Chairs" seems correct. The wording we have is fine. Wording on the result of the request is addressed in the next sentence. No change necessary. Expert Advisors: Re: Sylvia's comment -- Key that the CCWG does seek advice. · Potential issue: If such advice comes at a price and there is push back from the Board. Do we have a provision to allow auction proceeds to be used for this? · Caution about spending auction funds. There would need to be a community discussion. · First priority to get advice in house. If there is a proper budget done and it is sent to the SOs/ACs and approved, then there shouldn't be an issue. · We have had expert advice for many groups and some have volunteered their time. Not binary between in house and not. Action Item #3: Insert new text: "It is strongly recommended that for specific areas of expertise -- financial, legal, or otherwise -- the CCWG does seek expert advice.” In the next sentence replace “from the COs” with “via the appropriate mechanism.” Revised sentence is, “If additional costs are involved prior approval must be obtained via the appropriate mechanism." Staffing & Resources: · Has this comment from Alan been addressed relating to interpretation? Don't know what it would cost and not sure the way forward. · The point is whether we make this a pre-requisite. Even with interpretation, the documents will still be in English. · If we are not explicit in this we will have people appointed who will not be fluent in English. · Need to estimate the costs and get the budget approved. Leaning towards a firmer line. · Prefer to have it in English. Put this requirement in and see the reactions. Action Item #4: Insert new text: 1) "If additional costs are to be incurred prior approval must be obtained via the appropriate processes." And 2) "In line with other CCWGs and mindful of the costs of running such groups, the CCWG will be conducted exclusively in English and this is a consideration driven by costs and operational issues." Board consideration and interaction with CCWG and Chartering Organizations: · Flag a point that will be discussed by the Board. The Board consideration of the CCWG Auction Proceeds proposals (highlighted in the document). · The Board will provide quick informal feedback from its discussion in the Helsinki Workshop. · Not sure we want to mention this in the Charter. Caution about limiting how the outcomes will be taken. Agree not to do it. Board can always reject recommendations. · Could be in the principles for CCWGs. Action Item #5: Change to “It is assumed that after submission of the Board Report, the ICANN Board of Directors will give due consideration to the Proposal(s) contained in this Report.” And strike out “in accordance with the process [to be confirmed by the ICANN Board. See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d for example].” 3. Helsinki meeting planning – Cross-Community Session Tuesday 28 June from 15.15 to 16.45 Action Item #6: Confirm the process concerning whether a draft charter needs to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations and/or go out for public comment, noting that there was general agreement that public comment wasn’t necessary.

2 3