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@icann.org www.icann.org