[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item

Tue Feb 12 14:36:22 UTC 2019

Hello Marika, all

I looked through the spreadsheet and I agree to move forward with the
leadership team proposals, and review a new draft report based on that.

Some comments.

I advocate taking new New Ideas in when they are improvements of our
existing findings but not when they are new structural changes. It's just
too late. I would also appreciate, for a new revision of the review tool,
to have a different label for Concerns taken as improvement over some risks
in the proposed mechanism vs. Concerns taken as plain disagreement (as in
Mechanism C should win).

The issue of clearly separating the funding appeal process from the general
ICANN "appeal" process is worth elaborating a bit indeed, and I like the
approach suggested. I wanted to point out that this is relevant regardless
of the mechanisms selected since as we were told many times, ICANN is
responsible for all disbursed funding, no matter how many intermediaries.

Regarding Mechanism A, are there already other ICANN branches/AC/SO that
have independent appeal process of their decisions clearly separated from
the "board level" process ?

At some point, a reviewing party is asking for examples,
Preliminary CCWG Recommendation #2

The NCSG broadly supports the identified objectives for the allocation of
funds but would like to see specific examples ..

and I don't understand why the proposed answer doesn't just point them at
the already existing Example projects Annex D?

In any case, I think one the first job of the next group, in charge of
setting up the funding mechanism itself, will be to run a "fake" call for
proposals and have a small committee review those in light of our report
recommendations and the board vision of the semantics of "consistent with
the mission" at the this point in time. I don't advocate further work by
this CCWG on that topic.

Somehow, I think this next committee will have to come up with a metric,
rather than a boolean, to measure the distance between the proposal aims
and the ICANN operational mission (only IP/DNS). Proposals closer than a
given distance from this core mission will be unfundable based on the
principle that these funds should not fund ICANN operations, and proposals
further than another distance will also be unfundable based on the
principle that these funds should be used consistent with the mission (how
consistent is the real question).

My understanding, from past discussions in this group, is that the ICANN
board and community are the sole parties involved in setting up these two
min and max distances, and not some kind of California 501c3 gov auditor,
for whom ICANN really means nothing but the I in its acronym.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:24 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:

> Reminder: *Action item #1*: Group to revise the public comment review
> tool (see attached) and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by
> the leadership team.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 09:28
> *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
>
>
> = = = = = = =
>
>
>
> *Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30
> January 2019*
>
>
>
> *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
> <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.
>
>
>
> *2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates*
>
> Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as
> needed
>
>
>
> *3. Proposed approach for reviewing / addressing public comments:*
>
> *a. Present proposed approach*
>
> i. Acknowledge those comments that are in support of the proposed
> recommendations or recommend minor updates
>
> ii. Leadership team to put forward proposed approach for those comments
> that are either new or differ from the proposed recommendations
>
> iii.      CCWG to review items in category 2 and flag for which the
> proposed approach is not supported or where an alternative is needed
>
> iv.      CCWG to implement proposed approach as agreed upon under 3
>
> *b. CCWG comments / input on proposed approach*
>
> *c. Deliberate on comments identified as requiring further deliberation,
> as an example.*
>
>
>
> ·          Before going to the Public Comment Review Tool, let's capture
> what was discussed during our last meeting: we ended with the public
> comments. We received some feedback that the initial report was not
> emphasising that the community should be reviewing the model, and decide on
> the structure of the auction proceeds. Some new ideas were raised as well.
> Leadership and staff analysed the comments, and will present the analysis
> during today's call.
>
> ·          Modified version of the public comment review tool, which we
> shared prior to the new year. Break down the comments, along the lines of
> the sections of the initial report, and the questions and recommendations.
>
> ·          Further thinking about how to further facilitate your
> consideration. How to deal with input? Focusing on next step. Potential
> changes to the report might be needed.
>
> ·          We added a column : analysis of the type of change suggested,
> and possible action. For those items where the CCWG is asked to consider
> certain perspectives, to assess what the next step might be for the CCWG.
> For those comments where no change was suggested, staff has put in the
> right column "thank you for the input, we appreciate your support for the
> recommendation".
>
> ·          Way to develop a workplan for the next phase: we can line up
> the items that require further consideration.
>
> ·          example page 8: this recommendation is suggesting to consider
> enhancing option A. Staff labeled this a "new idea”, and put together some
> preliminary recommendations.
>
> ·          Concerns were raised that the comments are not helping us,
> since after 2 years of operation we did not come up with a report that was
> decisive and detailed enough
>
> ·          There was a letter from the Board during/after the Barcelona
> meeting. For this particular Board letter we added a summary in this
> document. A reply should be formulated.
>
>
>
> *Action item #1:*
>
> Group to revise the public comment review tool and to share thoughts on
> the recommendations made by the leadership team.
>
>
>
> *Action #2:*
>
> Leadership team and CCWG to fomulate answer to the Board's latest letter.
>
>
>
>
>
> *4. Next steps / proposed timeline*
>
>
>
>    - Chair Ching Chiao suggests to give the group 2 weeks to further
>    comment.
>    - Is a next public comment rounded needed?
>       - Chair suggests we have a better idea by the next meeting whether
>       a next public comment period is needed or not. However, a second round
>       means further delays in delivering the end results.
>       - Others say a second public comment round is inevitable due to the
>       fact that our report asks too many questions, without taking any decisions,
>       or that a second round would be needed more to the extent that we are not
>       able to integrate the feedback from the community into the existing report.
>
>       - Some concerns were raised regarding what the group wants to
>       achieve, other than a new comment round. The group needs to be more
>       focused, and show a lot of progress, otherwise a second round will not be
>       looked positively upon.
>       - Marika suggests for the group to work through to the comments and
>       make updates as needed. Once the report has been updated, make the
>       assessment whether the changes are fundamental enough to warrant a second
>       round of public comment. Might be premature to say so now.
>    - Working Methods
>
> There are substantial number of items that have been identified for
> further consideration. What is the best way of dealing with this? Go
> through those items collectively? Would offline work be helpful, e.g. via a
> google doc? Are smaller teams helpful here? A number of approaches are
> helpful to consider there. That helps us to work out a draft timeline
> leading into the final report, or a next report.
>
>
>
> *Action item #3: *
>
> Chair suggests staff and the leadership team to spend further thoughts on
> how to help focusing the group on the leadership recommendations.
>
>
>
>    - Marika suggests the group to focus on reviewing the comments, and to
>    flag concerns with the recommendations. Staff can put together clusters of
>    topics that need to be addressed, including new ideas, so that the review
>    can kick off.
>    - How to go through these questions? plenary style? 2-week meeting
>    cycle, with set of questions and how to address whether changes are to be
>    made to the report? Plenary style will take a lot of time.
>    - how is the CCWG supposed to deal with submissions where there are
>    concerns? especially if there are checks and further study to be made of
>    the submission idea
>
> the CCWG will need to explain how those concerns where already considered
> and considered addressed, or consider how these concerns can be addressed,
> whether that is through further checks, further study and/or updates to the
> report / recommendations. In certain cases it may be a new concern that the
> group didn't think about yet, in other cases, it may be a concern that the
> group already considered and addressed as part of its recommendations.  the
> group should focus on the review of comments and how that affects the
> recommendations, and only after that think about whether additional public
> comment is needed
>
>    - categories in the public comment review tool, 3rd column: [Support],
>    [Concern]: to flag anything that is not agreement, and not a completely new
>    idea, [New idea]
>
>
>
>
>
> *5. Plans for ICANN64*
>
>
>
>     a. Monday 11 March – 13.30 – 15.00 local time
>
>     b. Wednesday 13 March – 17.00 – 18.30 local time
>
>
>
> Some concerns regarding the 2nd slot. Challenging for many SO/ACs.
>
> Staff to verify whether there is an alternative slot for the second one.
>
> We are most likely still in public comment review phase in Kobe, it is
> important for people to attend.
>
>
>
> *6. Confirm next meeting*
>
>
>
> 13 February 2019, 14:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> *7. AOB*
>
>
>
> Reconfirmation of the membership. Not intended as a new call for
> volunteers.  Ensure that we have a good participation level. Remind
> SO/ACs that is important that members actively participate, especially when
> we come to a consensus call.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> joke.braeken at icann.org
>
>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=cxcw1DLXd6EHYCw45RknfVVFDJTu2y03lK0sIzgjhBw&s=Qi-zqKp3DDpyPpp1RZ4RKXIQriomShFsar1uMRAdzqA&e=>
>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
> [facebook.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=cxcw1DLXd6EHYCw45RknfVVFDJTu2y03lK0sIzgjhBw&s=_zi6b3OM-fi3hoXuLnaHTIAsd09C57paGI8lQZwAD0I&e=>
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=cxcw1DLXd6EHYCw45RknfVVFDJTu2y03lK0sIzgjhBw&s=mIjsgo0E9jkHYm-Lt0mj0TJm-iRCCQcSHlBiJTTVeAU&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190212/b89466ae/attachment-0001.html>