[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from 11 March new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting

Mon Mar 18 22:31:56 UTC 2019

Thanks well received
Remmy

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, 6:22 p.m. Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the delay, but please find below the notes and action items
> of last week’s CCWG meeting. As a reminder, the next meeting has been
> scheduled for 27 March at 14.00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
>
>
> *CCWG Auction Proceeds*
>
> Monday 11 March, 2019
>
>
>
> 1.       Roll Call
>
> 2.       Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates
>
> 3.       Brief overview of the objective of the CCWG and status of work
>
>
>
>    - See slides presented during the meeting (
>    https://community.icann.org/x/OKQWBg)
>    - Leadership expressed desire to complete work by ICANN65 – at which
>    time a decision would need to be made on whether a new public comment
>    period is necessary
>
>
>
> *Discussion in relation to mechanism A, B and C*
>
>    - It was emphasized that certain aspects, such as independence of
>    evaluators, Board legal and fiduciary requirements, will be the same
>    regardless of which mechanism is chosen.
>    - It was pointed out that mechanism C, foundation, could be in-house
>    or external – some expressed a view that in order to ensure independence,
>    it would need to be external.
>    - Mechanism B – it was noted that some comments seem to have favored
>    this mechanism, but without necessarily having clarity or agreement on
>    which aspects of the work would be outsourced to the external entity.
>    - Some pointed out that the favoring of C could be the result of a
>    misunderstanding of the role of ICANN Org in the context of mechanism A –
>    ICANN Board or ICANN staff will NOT evaluate or select individual projects,
>    this would be done through independent evaluators.
>    - If various mechanisms are provided, it really needs to be clear what
>    each mechanism means and includes (and what it doesn’t). The leadership
>    team therefore recommends to identify topics that will have to be addressed
>    in all mechanism - for example fiduciary and legal obligations - in an
>    identical way and separate these topics from topics that have to be
>    differentiated, based on the mechanism selected.
>    - Board input: whatever recommendation CCWG makes, it will not be Org
>    or Board deciding on individual projects. Mission, values and fiscal
>    responsibility are the key factors.
>    - Re-evaluate legal advice / comments from Board – put this in the
>    form of an FAQ so it is easily digestible. Make sure to provide a link to
>    the full record. These documents would also guide the implementation phase.
>
>
>
> *Action item*: Staff to further develop FAQs and share these with the
> CCWG.
>
>
>
> 4.       Continue review of public comments:
>
> a.       Charter question #2 input (see template attached)
>
>
>
> Comment #4 – since there is a statement that these funds cannot be used on
> activities that are already funded by the ICANN budget, would need clarity
> whether another entity could work on this project as this would be
> considered consistent as ICANN already works on this, but it could probably
> not be used to fund a specific project that is already being funded.
> Differentiate between the label / topic and a specific project. CCWG may
> need to further consider how limited or broad may go with regards to
> whether or not something that ICANN Org has funded previously could be
> funded, or whether it is only intended for projects that ICANN Org has not
> funded previously. Need to be clear about this and not leave a question
> mark. The more it looks like operational work, it gets close to crossing
> the line. Highlights the importance of independence of evaluators to make
> these decisions. If it is currently or more recently funded, it should not
> be eligible. Could develop grant-making guidelines which specifically
> either exclude line items funded in the ICANN budget. But grantmaking could
> still be guided by the Strategic Plan goals.
>
>
>
> CCWG response: Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in
> the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more
> exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made
> by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements.
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: Review example list as well as guidelines and consider
> whether additional language  should be added to reflects the above
> discussion.
>
> (Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for
> inclusion).
>
>
>
> Comment #5:
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: leadership team to review the language and make a
> recommendation on whether or not further clarify the language.
>
>
>
> Comment #6: See CCWG agreement #4.
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: review evaluation guidelines to make sure that sufficient
> reporting requirements are included.
>
>
>
> Comment #9: Would need to confirm legal requirements and whether this
> would be possible.
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: request clarification from ICANN Legal whether there would
> be any constraints that would prevent this from
>
>
>
> b.       Charter question #3 input (see template attached)
>
>
>
> Comment #1:
>
>
>
> *Action item*: CCWG to review the ICANN Board letter and reconsider
> during the next meeting whether or not to add the Board’s language.
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: to be confirmed during the next meeting.
>
>
>
> Comment #2: It is in the nature of grantmaking that not all projects
> succeed.  It would be good to determine in grantmaking guidelines how that
> risk will be assessed and what percentage of projects will be funded that
> are "risky" or "aspirational".
>
>
>
> CCWG agreement: add ‘reputational risk’ to CCWG’s checklist as an
> important factor in designing the final mechanism as well as project
> evaluation.
>
>
>
> c.       Charter question #4 input (see template attached)
>
>
>
> Comment#4: CCWG is considering a one-off mechanism. If it comes up in the
> future, the ICANN Board / community can reconsider this decision. No change
> to be made to the recommendation.
>
>
>
> d.       Charter question #5 input (see template attached)
>
> e.       Charter question #6 input (see template attached)
>
> f.        Charter question #7 input (see template attached)
>
> (Review of these may continue during Wednesday’s session)
>
>
>
> 5.       Confirm next steps & next meeting
>
>
>
> Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday 27 March at 14.00 UTC. (Note that the
> Wednesday meeting at ICANN64 has been cancelled due to lack of expected
> participation).
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>  *
>
>
>
> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>
> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=> and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&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/20190318/8244419d/attachment-0001.html>