[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Follow up on action item #2 - proposed addition to Final Report

Thu Apr 4 16:13:03 UTC 2019

+1 Elliot - for the addition of staff to the statement

Maureen

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:27 AM elliot noss <enoss at tucows.com> wrote:

> For greater clarity, and I know it is not directly relevant to the
> particular action item, might:
>
> ““Neither the Board nor staff will be taking decisions on individual
> applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on
> whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.”
>
> be ok? I just think this point is of even greater concern to the community
> and any opportunity to reinforce it is useful.
>
> EN
>
> > On Apr 4, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > In relation to action item #2, you can find here the ICANN Board letter:
> 2018-10-05 Becky Burr and Maarten Botterman to Erika Mann and Ching Chiao
> CCWG-AP.pdf. The suggestion is to add the following clarification to the
> Final Report: “The Board will not be taking decisions on individual
> applications but will instead focus its consideration of the slate on
> whether the rules of the process were followed by the independent panel.”
> If there are any concerns about this addition, please share this with the
> mailing list so it can be discussed further during the next meeting, if
> needed.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marika
> >
> > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:32
> > To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> > Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] action items and informal notes from the
> CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00
> UTC)
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find below the action items and informal notes from the CCWG new
> gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC)
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Joke Braeken
> >
> >
> >
> > NOTES / ACTION ITEMS
> >
> > 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/x/DLHDAw .
> >
> > 1. Roll Call
> >
> > Attendance will be taken from AC. Please remember to mute your
> microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for
> transcription purposes.
> >
> > Marilyn Cade is suggesting to have a role call. Every participant is to
> state its role and affiliation.
> > Note by staff: only members and participants are invited to the CCWG
> Auction Proceeds calls. Each chartering organization was able to appoint up
> to 5 members, while anyone is able to sign up as a participant.
> > There is no concept of "voting members". The group needs to reach a
> consensus decision.  Membership / participant / observer information can
> also be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw
> >
> > Action item #1:
> > When joining the AC room for future calls, members and participants to
> include behind brackets whether they are a member or participant, and for
> members to specify their appointing organisation. This helps to have an
> overview of the affiliations of those participating in the call.
> >
> > 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI updates
> >
> > Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as
> needed
> >
> > 3. Discuss commitment and timeline for delivering Final Report by
> ICANN65 (see draft timeline attached)
> >
> > How can we ensure that we have sufficient comment from all members to do
> the work and to finalise it?
> > Chair aims to conclude the work by this group by the Marrakech meeting
> (ICANN65)
> > Marika mentioned that the Policy Forum in Marrakech is a shorter
> meeting, less flexibility to have parallel meetings. Afternoons are
> dedicated to cross community sessions. Sufficient participation needed in
> order to have a productive meeting. Carving out time for this group means
> other groups may not be able to meet.
> >
> > a. Is everyone committed to put in the work required to deliver a Final
> Report by ICANN65?
> >
> > Marilyn: ICANN65 deadline is not realistic. Support from the chartering
> organisations is needed. Unlikely that ICANN65 can provide a workspace of
> at least 4 hours, needed to finalise much of our work, if we even meet the
> proposed timeline. We should take a slightly extended timeline and push
> forward on achieving decisions. Many people will not have travel funding.
> Those that cannot attend in person should still be able to contribute.
> >
> > Chair is concerned that the money is frozen even longer before the
> process of building the implementation team can start.
> >
> > Question regarding how to add sessions to the schedule. Marika clarifies
> that for the policy forum all requests need to go through an SO/AC to get a
> session on the schedule. The CCWG effort is part of the GNSO room
> allocation. For the policy forum 7 slots are set aside for cross-community
> sessions or high interest sessions, and we are not able to schedule
> anything against those slots.  Staff is hopeful to be able to secure a 4h
> block. This is not a staff decision, factoring in needs of other groups,
> and ok by GNSO leadership team.
> > Planning deadline around 27 April. GNSO and ccNSO have already working
> on a draft schedule. EPDP also wants as much time as possible.
> >
> > Chair: ideally we should have a longer session at ICANN65, aim for a
> very early draft to be ready by ICANN65, to be finalised at that meeting.
> Further work after Marrakech will be needed.
> > Workplan to be fine-tuned, depending on how much time can be carved out
> at ICANN65.
> >
> > b. How can productivity be enhanced? Longer calls, more calls, more
> mailing list activity?
> >
> >       • Marika: meeting the Marrakech deadline is challenging with the
> current pace. Target and goal are not realistic if does not match with the
> workload scheduling.
> >       • Maureen: task assigned to sub-groups are not always clear. Just
> getting started already took quite some time. Marilyn: we should appoint a
> lead to these sub-groups, to ensure the work gets done.
> >       • Erika suggests to have calls with a 2,5 h duration? Test this
> for the next 2 calls. Comments regarding the preference for a max 2h call.
> Sebastien: check that the extension does not conflict with other calls. In
> principle agrees to move to 2 hours. Chair suggests to keep having calls
> every 2 weeks, but instead of 90 minutes, have calls for 120 minutes.
> >
> >       • Marika reminds group members what the focus of the group is:
> What - if anything - needs to be changed to the initial report? Look at
> examples in the annex, guidance that is provided in the annex.
> >
> > Summary of the discussions:
> >       • have a very early draft ready by Marrakech
> >       • aim for a longer session at ICANN65
> >       • extended duration of the 2-weekly calls. From 90 to 120 minutes
> >       • discussions by the CCWG to be continued after Marrakech
> >
> > 4. Follow up on action items coming out of ICANN64:
> >
> > a. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan
> and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion
> >
> > Marilyn will take the lead. Draft to be shared with full group on
> mailing list, if needed discussion can be scheduled during the next call.
> >
> > b. Comment #1 (charter question #3) - CCWG to review the ICANN Board
> letter and reconsider during the next meeting whether or not to add the
> Board’s language
> >
> > Consensus to add a clarification to the report, to make clear what the
> Board envisaged role is? In principle there was no objection.
> > This refers to charter question number 3, and guidance provided
> regarding the implementation phase. Some of questions were raised regarding
> the role of staff and the board. This was discussed in Kobe as well:
> neither Board nor staff will be approving or evaluating individual projects.
> >
> > Action item #2:
> > Report clarification: to be discussed again during the next meeting, due
> to its importance. Letter to be circulated again to the CCWG.
> >
> > c. Status of FAQs
> >
> > staff aims to share the draft to the mailing list, prior to the next
> meeting. e.g. will address questions regarding for instance legal and
> judiciary requirements, and the board input provided.
> >
> > Action item #3:
> > staff to follow-up on status of FAQs via the CCWG AP mailing list
> >
> > 5. Continue review of public comment templates:
> >
> > a. Charter question #4 input (see template attached)
> >
> > during the previous meeting, we left off at comment number 7.
> > suggestion to keep the original proposal.
> >
> > b. Charter question #5 input (see template attached)
> >
> > comment by ICANN Board. This is an area where further guidance has been
> provided in previous letters.
> > Erika's suggestion for further investigation into an appropriate
> mechanism to define COI
> >
> > Grant distribution mechanism is a different process than what ICANN does
> within its own processes. Implementation team should do more examination of
> what appropriate COI practices are.
> >
> > Drafting needed of the guideline for the implementation team.
> > Carolina Caeiro: I agree with the idea that the implementation team
> should take care of outlining in detail the provisions to avoid CoI.
> Perhaps we can reinforce our recommendation language, to say "Robust
> conflict of interest provisions must be developed and put in place ***at
> every phase of the process***, regardless of which mechanism is ultimately
> selected.
> >
> > Action item #4:
> > Regarding COI: leadership team to formulate language, based on
> Carolina's proposal
> >
> > c. Charter question #6 input (see template attached)
> >
> > Marilyn: concern about inclusion and exclusion. Who can benefit from the
> project, vs where the proposal comes from.
> > Erika mentioned a basket approach: target certain topics, or certain
> regions.
> > Maureen Hilyard: Perhaps the wording does need to be altered to not
> exclude deserving projects that may not be in what are considered
> underserved regions, etc
> > Carolina Caeiro: My read of the comment was different.  The rec is about
> mechanism B (ICANN+external org). I think the fear is that an eternal org
> would not have a clear sense for what orgs are close to ICANN and
> supporting its mission?
> >
> > comment number 4
> > see recommendation from previous comment
> >
> > d. Charter question #7 input (see template attached)
> >
> > 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting
> >
> > Next meeting 10 April 14 UTC
> >
> >
> >
> > Joke Braeken
> > ccNSO Policy Advisor
> > joke.braeken at icann.org
> >
> > Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]
> > Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [
> facebook.com]
> > http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> > Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190404/b29c396b/attachment-0001.html>