[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting - Thursday 26 July

[Emily Barabas]

Dear All,


Please find below the notes and action items from today’s New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting.

Please note two action items from today’s call for CCWG follow-up:


Action item #1:

CCWG to review section A “Questions for the CCWG to answer” of the document available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYlv616IkOjK0lxCQpQ1x7XbUQoi3tch2sZ0E9GI3sA/edit. CCWG will provide any input on possible responses by Friday, 3 Aug 2018 COB. Leadership team and staff will draft a summary of where we stand, once input has been received.


Action item #2:

CCWG to review draft questions for ICANN org input, Board input, and external consultant Sarah Berg input by Monday, 30 July at 14:00 UTC. The draft questions are available in sections B, C, and D of the document here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYlv616IkOjK0lxCQpQ1x7XbUQoi3tch2sZ0E9GI3sA/edit. CCWG will provide feedback about whether these are the right questions to ask the respective parties. It is not necessary for the group to attempt to answer these questions at this time. The group may decide to send additional questions to additional expert resources in the future, as appropriate and needed.



Kind regards,

Emily



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



NOTES



These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings



  1.  Roll Call



  *   Attendance will be taken from AC
  *   Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes



  1.  Welcome – SOI & DOI Updates



  *   Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate



  1.  Discussion of next steps on outstanding questions



(see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYlv616IkOjK0lxCQpQ1x7XbUQoi3tch2sZ0E9GI3sA/edit)

  *   last call we discussed a possible approach to deal with the outstanding questions
  *   A subgroup was created.  Brief overview provided by Emily Barabas from staff on the work done and what the next steps are.
  *   Additional expertise and input needed on some of the questions, e.g. gaps on input received from experts, questions that arose from Sarah Berg's input.  Subgroup verified on whom is best placed to answer these questions. Different questions have been breaked down based on who can provide input.
  *   Suggested is a step-by-step approach. Proposal to look at 3 initial chunks of questions:
     *   1. Questions for the CCWG;
     *   2. Questions for ICANN Org (Legal/Finance/ICANN Board);
     *   3. Questions where External expertise is required. Those will be first presented to Sarah Berg, and once her feedback has been submitted they might go to outside legal counsel or other external experts.
  *   Regarding the topic of regulations & laws impacting sanctions. Sam Eisner (ICANN Org) has a conflict for this call, but is happy to speak to this in the next call



Questions for the CCWG to answer will be addressed during today's call., or latest by mid next week.  First 4 questions.



1/ What are we aiming at? Single mechanism to recommend in the initial report? Or a ranking of the different mechanisms? A list of pros and cons?

  *   The CCWG seems to prefer the ranking option, but concerns are raised regarding the 4th mechanism, which some prefer to move to the side.
  *   Concern that the CCWG does not provide a clear path forward, but leaves too many different options open when publishing the Draft Initial Report.
  *   Should the 4th mechanism be removed in the list of mechanisms? If so, it would make our work a bit lighter. We could also keep it in the ranking, but in the last position. This decision will help us target the next steps.



2/ is additional work needed on the CCWG in defining goals and objectives the fund should support?

  *   Quite some work has been done already: the preamble, the list of examples, the Preliminary Agreement B on high-level objectives to the Group (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Charter+Question+Templates



Action item #1:

CCWG to review section A “Questions for the CCWG to answer” of the document available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYlv616IkOjK0lxCQpQ1x7XbUQoi3tch2sZ0E9GI3sA/edit. CCWG will provide any input on possible responses by Friday, 3 Aug 2018 COB. Leadership team and staff will draft a summary of where we stand, once input has been received.



3/ What does success look like for this group? are there metrics that should be tracked and reported upon on a regular basis?



  *   our mission statement defines the funding environment.  Metrics can be as simple/complicated as the application process itself. When the project is implemented, size of the grant, duration of the implementation period are important.



4/ Define principles to determine an appropriate level of overhead.



  *   Charter Q.8 speaks to this.  Some discussions are too implementation oriented than what is needed initially.
  *   e.g. should be cost effective, should be concluded within estimated time period.
  *   if not justifiable, we can drop this point, however the mechanism also plays a role here. Accountability, cross-financing between different units might become an issue



Sanctions



  *   Sam Eisner has shared the following presentation, which was originally given to the WS2 Jurisdiction group: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69272128&preview=/69272128/69274724/OFAC%20Presentation.pdf
  *   The issue will come up, if the group suggests mechanism 1 in the draft initial report. It will be raised by the community. Suggestion to have an external opinion on how other 5013C org registerd in the US deal with this issue.  The CCWG should prepare the ground for this mechanism to be accepted, but not necessarily come up with a solution.



Action item #2:

CCWG to review draft questions for ICANN org input, Board input, and external consultant Sarah Berg input by Monday, 30 July at 14:00 UTC. The draft questions are available in sections B, C, and D of the document here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYlv616IkOjK0lxCQpQ1x7XbUQoi3tch2sZ0E9GI3sA/edit. CCWG will provide feedback about whether these are the right questions to ask to the respective parties. It is not necessary for the group to attempt to answer these questions at this time. The group may decide to send additional questions to additional expert resources in the future, as appropriate and needed.



4. Review of Work Plan and Next Steps



  *   Discuss the sanctions-issue in the next call, when Sam Eisner is present
  *   Adjustments to the Work Plan are needed. The additional expertise will move the timeline slightly. Proposed timeline and Work Plan are being displayed in the AC room
  *   End goal: to present an initial report 3 weeks ahead of Barcelona.



Action item #3

Leadership team to discuss the workplan with staff during a prep call



5. AOB



  *   Next meeting : Thu, 9 August 2018 (14:00 UTC)






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180726/6e8c02d3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-AP Questions for 26 July 2018 call (2).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34754 bytes
Desc: CCWG-AP Questions for 26 July 2018 call (2).docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180726/6e8c02d3/CCWG-APQuestionsfor26July2018call2-0001.docx>