Dear All The following are the notes and outcomes from today’s meeting and relate to the items contained within the latest draft of the post-Helsinki meeting comment review tool: Comment (7) – The DT determined that language should not be included which prohibits the use of funds for activities within ICANN itself. Proposed language "CCWG should be assigned responsibility for determining to what extent and how ICANN itself could be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds" Comment (8) - The DT determined that wording needs to be clarified. Does this mean not funding projects which fund competition in the market place then this is valid? However, helping markets in developing states may have been a valid project. [ACTION: Staff to try and clarify from Helsinki meeting] Comment (9) - The DT determined that direction should be given to CCWG to be clear about how their proposal furthers ICANN's mission. "CWG is required to deliberate and make recommendations on how the use is aligned to the mission." Comment (10) - No further comments were made. Comment (11) -  The DT determined agreed that term to be used is 'not endanger' rather than 'support'. Comment (12) - The DT determined that the utilisation of funds should be related to ICANN's mission and whatever distribution mechanism is established should also examine the relationship of each distribution to the mission statement. Comment (13) - [ACTION: SC to circulate language which had been removed specifically prior to Helsinki meeting] Comment (14) – DT agreed with comment received. Comment (15) - The DT determined that Draft Charter should include language which will require the CCWG to develop an appropriate governance framework and mechanisms for measuring success. Comment (16) - (21)- The DT determined that CCWG stage will require sufficient transparency but this is separate from the dispersal phase where there can be no conflicts of interest. The DT proposed the following model: Mandatory and enhanced statements of interest (SoI) (with particular disclosures on any intended future involvement) which is unique to the CCWG. Next step to define the content of this mandatory SoI. [ACTION: (i) DT finalise language and then board members seek input from board group, (ii) DT to determine content of mandatory SoI and criteria for inclusion/exclusion from CCWG and (iii)Deal with mission and conflict of interest issues as a whole rather than separately.] Confirmation of time / date of next meeting [ACTION: Doodle poll to be released for next meeting in 2 weeks.] I enclose an updated copy of the of the Comment review tool incorporating the DT’s considerations. Kind regards, 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@icann.org www.icann.org