- Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

For your review - updated charter Re: Language on Board Consideration
by Marika Konings Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear All, Following the input from the ICANN Board, please find attached an updated version of the draft charter which incorporates this input in section V. As a reminder, please share any comments and/or proposed edits you may have with the mailing list ahead of the next DT meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday at 19.30 UTC. 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 Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday 27 August 2016 at 12:08 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] Language on Board Consideration Dear Jonathan and Alan, On behalf of Asha and Erika as Board Liaisons to the Drafting Team, I am sending the below note from the ICANN Board in relation to the opportunity to provide language on Section 5 of the Draft Charter under ‘Board Consideration’: Board thanks the drafting team for its work in drafting a charter for the eventual Cross Community Working Group to develop a proposal(s) for the disbursement of the auction proceeds stemming from the auctions held by an ICANN authorized auction provider to resolve string contention as a method of last resort in the New gTLD Program Board looks forward to the completion of the charter of the CCWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, as well as the eventual recommendations of the CCWG Board commits to the following principle when considering the consensus-based recommendations of the CCWG: · Board agrees to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation (including, for example, where Board’s fiduciary responsibilities or legal obligations are impacted, or other obligations under the Bylaws or related Articles may be impacted) Best wishes, Lauren

2 1

Language on Board Consideration
by Lauren Allison Aug. 27, 2016

Aug. 27, 2016

Dear Jonathan and Alan, On behalf of Asha and Erika as Board Liaisons to the Drafting Team, I am sending the below note from the ICANN Board in relation to the opportunity to provide language on Section 5 of the Draft Charter under ‘Board Consideration’: Board thanks the drafting team for its work in drafting a charter for the eventual Cross Community Working Group to develop a proposal(s) for the disbursement of the auction proceeds stemming from the auctions held by an ICANN authorized auction provider to resolve string contention as a method of last resort in the New gTLD Program Board looks forward to the completion of the charter of the CCWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, as well as the eventual recommendations of the CCWG Board commits to the following principle when considering the consensus-based recommendations of the CCWG: · Board agrees to enter into a dialogue with the CCWG if the Board does not believe that it can accept a recommendation (including, for example, where Board’s fiduciary responsibilities or legal obligations are impacted, or other obligations under the Bylaws or related Articles may be impacted) Best wishes, Lauren

1 0

For your review - updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter
by Marika Konings Aug. 24, 2016

Aug. 24, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the revised new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter. I’ve highlighted in the draft which comment from the comment review tool each change aims to address and highlighted in yellow those items that at a minimum will require further DT review and input. To facilitate your review, you will also find attached the latest version of the comment review tool in which I have indicated how the comments that have not been discussed by the full DT yet were addressed. Following your review, please share any comments, questions and/or proposed edits with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 31 August at 19.30 UTC. 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

REMINDER FW: For your review by Wednesday 17 August - comment review tool
by Marika Konings Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

REMINDER From: <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 08:53 To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] For your review by Wednesday 17 August - comment review tool Dear All, As per the notes below, you will find attached the latest version of the comment review tool. Please add any comments and/or feedback you have by Wednesday 17 August at the latest. On the basis of the comments received, staff will produce a revised version of the charter in time for the next DT 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: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 16:43 To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes and Outcomes from new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Wednesday, 10 August Dear All The following email contains the notes and outcomes from today’s discussions by the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (‘DT’): Item 2.Review timeline and discuss approach proposed by Sylvia to move forward DT noted that the progress to date is not in line with current timetable, likely 1 meeting behind timeline, but there may be some flexibility that would still allow meeting the end goal for either option 1 or 2. Action item #1: (i) DT to review and/or add comments to the comment review tool by Wednesday 17 August and (ii) in parallel staff will review the comment review tool and produce a revised charter for review by the DT by next meeting to get progress back on track. Item 3. Continue review of comments on draft charter The DT continued its review of the comments received during and after ICANN56 Helsinki. Comment s 1 to 21 having previously been completed the DT resumed at comment 22. Action item #2: Staff to flag throughout next version of draft charter where updates have been made to address comments as well as where comments are already reflected in the charter. Comment 22 - CCWG to be encouraged to seek expert participation wherever possible and appropriate. Charter should encourage SO/ACs to ensure relevant experience contained within the composition of CCWG membership (perhaps seeking non-traditional participants to act as representatives), in addition, suggest to CCWG that at an early stage it should seek to bring in specialist expertise to aid the work of the group. Comment 23 - To be left as currently drafted in the Charter. It is desirable for members to have that knowledge but not a necessary condition. Comment 24 – Issues raised in comment and responses: (i) Number of seats, the role of the representative of Chartering organisations is to act as liaisons (and in the event of a consensus call) however, that does not prevent broader participation from within SO/ACs. Additionally, cannot allow group to expand to an unweildy degree, (ii) expertise, dealt with in Comment 22 (iii) self-dealing, DT has given consideration attention to this issue. Comment 25 - Agreed with Board comment to remove specific references to particular board positions and instead have 2 board liaisons to the CCWG. Comment 26 - DT will seek to gain further clarity on the Board's commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Action item #3: Board liaisons to follow-up on the Board’s commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Comment 27 - This comment is outwith the DT scope and will be worked on by the CCWG for eventual action by the mechanism, process or entity which deals with the allocation of funds. Comment 28 - This comment is outwith the DT scope, although evaluation and reporting is anticipated to be a critical aspect of final project and should be considered by the CCWG. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter Comment 29 - The CCWG will be responsible for setting the high level goals and shaping those further. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter. Comment 30 (also Comment 36) - The DT understands that this is currently a single revenue source (derived from new gTLD auction proceeds round 1). The DT takes no explicit position on disbursement. Action taken: Staff to flag where this issue has been dealt with in charter. Comment 31 - This is consistent with the DT's position. Comment 32 - DT does expect the CCWG to have a finite life and the CCWG will not be involved in any distribution decisions. Should the DT instruct the CCWG to consider investment strategies for the funds? Income derived from the generation of capital on the investment will go back into auction proceeds and be available for disbursement. Action item #4: Board to provide a brief note to augment the Charter detailing the nature of the generation of capital and the board's view of its responsibility for these matters. Comment 33 - The Charter should clearly articulate the role of the DT, the CCWG and post-CCWG process. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into the draft Charter. Comment 34 - Out of scope for DT but expect that CCWG would set a requirement that evaluation and performance criteria should be utilised. The CCWG should define high level goals for the funding. The CCWG will deliberate on and decide the extent to which any expected results are measured against specific criteria for success. NOTE: THIS ANSWER IS NOT FINALISED - to be finalised offline. N.B. - Any discussion on evaluation needs to make distinction between performance of the fund overall and the performance of any grants. Comment 35 - The DT expects that diversity will have a critical place in all aspects of the CCWG's work and recommendations. The time allocated for the DT meeting having expired the DT paused its consideration at Comment 36. Action item #5: Comments on the outstanding items to be provided within 1 WEEK (17 August) to allow staff to prepare revised draft of charter. Item 4. Confirm time / date of next meeting Action item #6: DT Members to complete doodle pool to schedule meeting in the week of 22 August 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

2 1

Update: Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, Further to our previous email we have encountered some technical difficulties with the survey which was previously sent out. To that end we have prepared a replacement and would ask you to still complete it by 11 September 2016. The revised survey is available here - https://goo.gl/forms/nUO214NICcPm7jc83 The responses which have already been received will be tracked through by staff to ensure their inclusion in the final report. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:20 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Survey on Newcomer Tools Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. 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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. 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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0

Re: [Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] [Ntfy-dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] Doodle Poll: new gTLD Auction Proceeds DT conference call: Tuesday, 23 August or Wednesday 24 August
by Sylvia Cadena Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Just filled in. Thanks for including a time that during my normal work hours instead of midnight. Although it might not work for many it will be great to have one call that does not let me struggling for lack of sleep the next day :) Warm regards, Sylvia ————————————————————————— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Community Partnerships Specialist | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> sylvia(a)voip.apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@voip.apnic.net> | skypeID: sylviacadena FB ISIF.asia | G+ ISIFAsia | @ISIF_Asia 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/ * Love trees. Print only if necessary. From: <ntfy-dt-cwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 12:21 AM To: "ntfy-dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ntfy-dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] Doodle Poll: new gTLD Auction Proceeds DT conference call: Tuesday, 23 August or Wednesday 24 August Dear all, In order to schedule a new gTLD Auction Proceeds DT conference call to take place on Tuesday, 23 August or Wednesday, 24 August 2016, please be so kind as to complete the below Doodle poll. http://doodle.com/poll/g5pgci34r7u7d6nf I have enabled the time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

mp3 and attendance new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team 27 July 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team held on 27 July 2016 at 12:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-27jul16-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 Sylvia Cadena ccNSO Will not be participating in the drafting team GAC None GNSO Tony Harris Jonathan Robinson RSSAC Kaveh Ranjbar SSAC Russ Mundy Board Board Liaisons Erika Mann Asha Hemrajani Board appointed staff advisors Samantha Eisner Apologies: Marika Konings (staff) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Vinciane Koenigsfeld Lauren Allison 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 Wednesday, 27 July 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter Drafting Team held on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:00 UTC Erika Mann:Good afternoon! David Tait:Good afternoon Erika Erika Mann:I'm in but can't speak, still blocked Erika Mann:Good afternoon David! Erika Mann:I know Terry but the icon is not showing the activation plug in Erika Mann:I will rejoin Jonathan Robinson:Hi. I have a clash and am hoping Alan can lead for the first 30 minutes Erika Mann:I'm still working, can't see it on my end that it's working Erika Mann:Thank you! Jonathan Robinson:I am not on audio nw since I have another live call running Terri Agnew:@Jonathan, thank you for this information. Alan is leading Jonathan Robinson:Thank you Terri Agnew:Sync is enabled and all can scroll themselves Erika Mann:Alan - are you now talking about point 1.? David Tait:Point 7 Tony Harris 2:Erika made a good point Samantha Eisner:There is the possibility of using SOME of the funds towards ICANN's operations, but using ALL of the funds towards ICANN's operations would actually risk ICANN's tax exempt status Erika Mann:exactly Sam Erika Mann:Good point Russ Erika Mann:Alan - I like this Erika Mann:Alan - I was thinking along the same line Erika Mann:Makes absolute sense David Tait:Yes Alan got it RussMundy-SSAC:Alan - I also support your wording. It does seem useful to have a pointer to the recommendations of relationship to mission Erika Mann:Exactly Tony Harris 2:Agree with Alan Jonathan Robinson:I am still tied up in my company meeting. Will commit to joining as soon as possible and / or catch-up on audio. Erika Mann:As thought, we have the same viewpoint Erika Mann:'must be aligned' or 'must be supported' by the mission Samantha Eisner:@Alan, I'd recommend language that the CCWG is required to deliberate and make recomnedations on how the use is aligned to the mission, as opposed to "decide" Tony Harris 2:Agree with Sylvia Erika Mann:Good point Sam RussMundy-SSAC:I agree with Sam's point Erika Mann:Sylvia is not having access to the Adobe screen, @Alan maybe you could read it to her Erika Mann:Supportive RussMundy-SSAC:We might also want to say that whatever distribution mechanism also examine the alignment for each distribution considered Erika Mann:Agree Erika Mann:Agree Erika Mann:Alan - agree, understood David Tait:If you give me a couple of moments Erika Mann:@Alan - Lauren is saying the following "focus on the diversity of process rather than diversity of uses of proceeds " Lauren Allison:re: the Board's comments Lauren Allison:not to Sylvia's point Terri Agnew:Welcome Asha Hemrajani David Tait:Thats correct Asha Hemrajani:Thank you Terri. I am trying to dial in now Terri Agnew:trying to find line that is causing slight echo Jonathan Robinson:Joining audio now. Suggest Alan continues to 90 min point. Erika Mann:@Russ - good point, such a separation between pure individual and individual/org might make sense Asha Hemrajani:Sylvia, please could you speak up a bit more please Erika Mann:Asha - she can't, she's on a mobile, she can't see Adobe neither Asha Hemrajani:ah ok RussMundy-SSAC:@Erika: Thanks & it's very possible that a person's status can change over time also Asha Hemrajani:Apologies for not being able to join earlier as I am at an IGF meeting today Erika Mann:@Russ, yes, I agree. Transparency should solve this problem largely RussMundy-SSAC:@Erika: yes, transparency is critial and everyone needs to understand that 'individual changes in status' must be identified Asha Hemrajani:I keep getting kicked out of Adobe unfortunately Asha Hemrajani:@jonathan I agree this is different from how we have done things in the past, simply because we are talking about a large sum of $$, no precedence to this Terri Agnew:@Asha, regarding adobe connect, I am sending you an email to check your plug in's. Also, as a reminder, Adobe prefers firefox Tony Harris 2:Agree with Jonathan Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. I am OK with us working on fleshing out the mandatory disclosure in the DT. Jonathan Robinson:But, it will be good to get the message to the board that this is the route we are going down. Erika Mann:Exactly Jonathan, Alan Lauren Allison:Asha would like to raise her hand Lauren Allison:(she's out of the room again :-( ) Alan Greenberg:Noted RussMundy-SSAC:@jonathan & Alan: Although my question may have sounded like a I disagreed with your approach but, in fact, I fully agree with the approach you describe Jonathan Robinson:@Russ. Thank you. No disagreement heard, only a clarifying question. Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. We simply note the disclosure Jonathan Robinson:in the SOI Asha Hemrajani:@jonathan, understood. And I agree with Alan's point that taking action would be a big departure from past behaviour, but this is a very different situation because we are talking about a large sum of $$ Jonathan Robinson:@Russ. On GNSO Council, we always call for any updates to SOIs at the start of every meeting. Asha Hemrajani:I am not suggesting a complete ban if the disclosure raises alarm bells ie no exclusionary statements. I am asking if there would be any prescribed next steps Jonathan Robinson:@Alan. Recall that we agreed to book 120 min slots but attempt to run the meeting in 90 minutes RussMundy-SSAC:@Asha: my general concern relate to whwat the prescribed steps might be. Jonathan Robinson:It will be unprecedented and very difficult to specify next steps. This will create a whole policy area in and of itself. RussMundy-SSAC:@Asha: thanks - that really clarifies Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. If you have the idea, it will be helpful to have your proposal. The current proposal is do nothing but record it. What is the alternative? Asha Hemrajani:@jonathan perhaps the answer could be that the CCWG decides what the next steps would be? Erika Mann:Alan - agree, we have an understanding. Let's move on. Erika Mann:I'm fine with the timing Asha Hemrajani:ie the CCWG themselves decide what themselves what to do with those declarations which raise alarms bells. Asha Hemrajani:I am fine with bi-weekly too Asha Hemrajani:this time works well for me - or an hour later would be good too Erika Mann:@Jonathan - the doodle did not work last time, Terry is checking why Erika Mann:Thanks!

1 1

For your review by Wednesday 17 August - comment review tool
by Marika Konings Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear All, As per the notes below, you will find attached the latest version of the comment review tool. Please add any comments and/or feedback you have by Wednesday 17 August at the latest. On the basis of the comments received, staff will produce a revised version of the charter in time for the next DT 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: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 16:43 To: "dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes and Outcomes from new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Wednesday, 10 August Dear All The following email contains the notes and outcomes from today’s discussions by the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (‘DT’): Item 2.Review timeline and discuss approach proposed by Sylvia to move forward DT noted that the progress to date is not in line with current timetable, likely 1 meeting behind timeline, but there may be some flexibility that would still allow meeting the end goal for either option 1 or 2. Action item #1: (i) DT to review and/or add comments to the comment review tool by Wednesday 17 August and (ii) in parallel staff will review the comment review tool and produce a revised charter for review by the DT by next meeting to get progress back on track. Item 3. Continue review of comments on draft charter The DT continued its review of the comments received during and after ICANN56 Helsinki. Comment s 1 to 21 having previously been completed the DT resumed at comment 22. Action item #2: Staff to flag throughout next version of draft charter where updates have been made to address comments as well as where comments are already reflected in the charter. Comment 22 - CCWG to be encouraged to seek expert participation wherever possible and appropriate. Charter should encourage SO/ACs to ensure relevant experience contained within the composition of CCWG membership (perhaps seeking non-traditional participants to act as representatives), in addition, suggest to CCWG that at an early stage it should seek to bring in specialist expertise to aid the work of the group. Comment 23 - To be left as currently drafted in the Charter. It is desirable for members to have that knowledge but not a necessary condition. Comment 24 – Issues raised in comment and responses: (i) Number of seats, the role of the representative of Chartering organisations is to act as liaisons (and in the event of a consensus call) however, that does not prevent broader participation from within SO/ACs. Additionally, cannot allow group to expand to an unweildy degree, (ii) expertise, dealt with in Comment 22 (iii) self-dealing, DT has given consideration attention to this issue. Comment 25 - Agreed with Board comment to remove specific references to particular board positions and instead have 2 board liaisons to the CCWG. Comment 26 - DT will seek to gain further clarity on the Board's commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Action item #3: Board liaisons to follow-up on the Board’s commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Comment 27 - This comment is outwith the DT scope and will be worked on by the CCWG for eventual action by the mechanism, process or entity which deals with the allocation of funds. Comment 28 - This comment is outwith the DT scope, although evaluation and reporting is anticipated to be a critical aspect of final project and should be considered by the CCWG. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter Comment 29 - The CCWG will be responsible for setting the high level goals and shaping those further. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter. Comment 30 (also Comment 36) - The DT understands that this is currently a single revenue source (derived from new gTLD auction proceeds round 1). The DT takes no explicit position on disbursement. Action taken: Staff to flag where this issue has been dealt with in charter. Comment 31 - This is consistent with the DT's position. Comment 32 - DT does expect the CCWG to have a finite life and the CCWG will not be involved in any distribution decisions. Should the DT instruct the CCWG to consider investment strategies for the funds? Income derived from the generation of capital on the investment will go back into auction proceeds and be available for disbursement. Action item #4: Board to provide a brief note to augment the Charter detailing the nature of the generation of capital and the board's view of its responsibility for these matters. Comment 33 - The Charter should clearly articulate the role of the DT, the CCWG and post-CCWG process. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into the draft Charter. Comment 34 - Out of scope for DT but expect that CCWG would set a requirement that evaluation and performance criteria should be utilised. The CCWG should define high level goals for the funding. The CCWG will deliberate on and decide the extent to which any expected results are measured against specific criteria for success. NOTE: THIS ANSWER IS NOT FINALISED - to be finalised offline. N.B. - Any discussion on evaluation needs to make distinction between performance of the fund overall and the performance of any grants. Comment 35 - The DT expects that diversity will have a critical place in all aspects of the CCWG's work and recommendations. The time allocated for the DT meeting having expired the DT paused its consideration at Comment 36. Action item #5: Comments on the outstanding items to be provided within 1 WEEK (17 August) to allow staff to prepare revised draft of charter. Item 4. Confirm time / date of next meeting Action item #6: DT Members to complete doodle pool to schedule meeting in the week of 22 August 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 0

Notes and Outcomes from new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Wednesday, 10 August
by David Tait Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear All The following email contains the notes and outcomes from today’s discussions by the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (‘DT’): Item 2.Review timeline and discuss approach proposed by Sylvia to move forward DT noted that the progress to date is not in line with current timetable, likely 1 meeting behind timeline, but there may be some flexibility that would still allow meeting the end goal for either option 1 or 2. Action item #1: (i) DT to review and/or add comments to the comment review tool by Wednesday 17 August and (ii) in parallel staff will review the comment review tool and produce a revised charter for review by the DT by next meeting to get progress back on track. Item 3. Continue review of comments on draft charter The DT continued its review of the comments received during and after ICANN56 Helsinki. Comment s 1 to 21 having previously been completed the DT resumed at comment 22. Action item #2: Staff to flag throughout next version of draft charter where updates have been made to address comments as well as where comments are already reflected in the charter. Comment 22 - CCWG to be encouraged to seek expert participation wherever possible and appropriate. Charter should encourage SO/ACs to ensure relevant experience contained within the composition of CCWG membership (perhaps seeking non-traditional participants to act as representatives), in addition, suggest to CCWG that at an early stage it should seek to bring in specialist expertise to aid the work of the group. Comment 23 - To be left as currently drafted in the Charter. It is desirable for members to have that knowledge but not a necessary condition. Comment 24 – Issues raised in comment and responses: (i) Number of seats, the role of the representative of Chartering organisations is to act as liaisons (and in the event of a consensus call) however, that does not prevent broader participation from within SO/ACs. Additionally, cannot allow group to expand to an unweildy degree, (ii) expertise, dealt with in Comment 22 (iii) self-dealing, DT has given consideration attention to this issue. Comment 25 - Agreed with Board comment to remove specific references to particular board positions and instead have 2 board liaisons to the CCWG. Comment 26 - DT will seek to gain further clarity on the Board's commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Action item #3: Board liaisons to follow-up on the Board’s commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the CCWG. Comment 27 - This comment is outwith the DT scope and will be worked on by the CCWG for eventual action by the mechanism, process or entity which deals with the allocation of funds. Comment 28 - This comment is outwith the DT scope, although evaluation and reporting is anticipated to be a critical aspect of final project and should be considered by the CCWG. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter Comment 29 - The CCWG will be responsible for setting the high level goals and shaping those further. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into Charter. Comment 30 (also Comment 36) - The DT understands that this is currently a single revenue source (derived from new gTLD auction proceeds round 1). The DT takes no explicit position on disbursement. Action taken: Staff to flag where this issue has been dealt with in charter. Comment 31 - This is consistent with the DT's position. Comment 32 - DT does expect the CCWG to have a finite life and the CCWG will not be involved in any distribution decisions. Should the DT instruct the CCWG to consider investment strategies for the funds? Income derived from the generation of capital on the investment will go back into auction proceeds and be available for disbursement. Action item #4: Board to provide a brief note to augment the Charter detailing the nature of the generation of capital and the board's view of its responsibility for these matters. Comment 33 - The Charter should clearly articulate the role of the DT, the CCWG and post-CCWG process. Action taken: Staff to ensure this is mapped into the draft Charter. Comment 34 - Out of scope for DT but expect that CCWG would set a requirement that evaluation and performance criteria should be utilised. The CCWG should define high level goals for the funding. The CCWG will deliberate on and decide the extent to which any expected results are measured against specific criteria for success. NOTE: THIS ANSWER IS NOT FINALISED - to be finalised offline. N.B. - Any discussion on evaluation needs to make distinction between performance of the fund overall and the performance of any grants. Comment 35 - The DT expects that diversity will have a critical place in all aspects of the CCWG's work and recommendations. The time allocated for the DT meeting having expired the DT paused its consideration at Comment 36. Action item #5: Comments on the outstanding items to be provided within 1 WEEK (17 August) to allow staff to prepare revised draft of charter. Item 4. Confirm time / date of next meeting Action item #6: DT Members to complete doodle pool to schedule meeting in the week of 22 August 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 0