[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] action items and informal notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC)

Wed Mar 27 19:37:16 UTC 2019

My apologies for having missed the meeting today. I will review the 
notes and comment on the list accordingly.

regards

Robert

--
Robert Guerra
Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org

On 27 Mar 2019, at 12:32, Joke Braeken wrote:

> 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<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
> http://ccnso.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds