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=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsuDGgbutH3nVNCyFQnIoBtiHFTcaeu4QmqxpOexJvnwAl7DO542ok5oNjiI-2BxUcfZg-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmvPdma2kjQv4-2Fbh3vJMxnvbKrPLmuvkCfrxeKFHFjJjodp2SWnfJmjZzXKobWTuHGAd37fEYiDsYCJGrQcAJ5Imo3JtjrKgIJb0bMeQvfFUiY0fW3KTze8cNjoaoReGT7QX8Y09iDtU56T-2BS7diST4iLDj22Sw43pNkZmvEX3hEf0qXfb-2BzQCgWgXii7oBBzBmHXZ1wWTFdsDI7F3stwUf3lDOr1uNSO0W3sQQJlUgXOuOxYVPpX8ZQVQr7-2FFZE5Le4shX4GLjBdano-2BMQadb-2BBY-2BIp8vDbiPJAQWepBrK0L> 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!