<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I agree with Daniel.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would also like to clearly understand how we will be addressing the issue of community approval for projects. This was a glaring hole in our first report.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">EN</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Daniel Dardailler <<a href="mailto:daniel.dardailler@gmail.com" class="">daniel.dardailler@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hello Marika, all<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Some comments.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 ? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">At some point, a reviewing party is asking for examples, </div><div class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: 700; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""> Preliminary CCWG Recommendation #2 </span></div><span id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-4e87b12a-7fff-9ab4-b368-d39e10d663c1" class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">The NCSG broadly supports the identified objectives for the allocation of funds but would like to see specific examples ..</span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class="">and I don't understand why the proposed answer doesn't just point them at the already existing Example projects Annex D? </font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class="">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.</font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class="">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).</font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class="">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.</font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""><br class=""></span></div></span><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:24 AM Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org" class="">marika.konings@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" class="">
<div class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Reminder: <b class="">Action item #1</b>: Group to revise the public comment review tool (see attached) and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><span style="" class="">From: </span></b><span style="" class="">Ccwg-auctionproceeds <<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <<a href="mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">joke.braeken@icann.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Date: </b>Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 09:28<br class="">
<b class="">To: </b>"<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject: </b>[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Dear All,</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class="">Best regards,</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class="">Joke Braeken</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" class="">= = = = = = =</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class=""> </b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"><span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><i class="">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: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw" target="_blank" class="">https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw</a>.</i><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"><span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">1. Roll Call</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3">Attendance will be taken from AC<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3">Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"><span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3">Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">3. Proposed approach for reviewing / addressing public comments:</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><i class="">a. Present proposed approach</i><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">i. Acknowledge those comments that are in support of the proposed recommendations or recommend minor updates<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">ii. Leadership team to put forward proposed approach for those comments that are either new or differ from the proposed recommendations<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">iii.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span>CCWG to review items in category 2 and flag for which the proposed approach is not supported or where an alternative is needed<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">iv.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span>CCWG to implement proposed approach as agreed upon under 3<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><i class="">b. CCWG comments / input on proposed approach</i><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><i class="">c. Deliberate on comments identified as requiring further deliberation, as an example.</i><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p4"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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".<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>Way to develop a workplan for the next phase: we can line up the items that require further consideration.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>example page 8: this recommendation is suggesting to consider enhancing option A. Staff labeled this a "new idea”, and put together some preliminary recommendations.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p3" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<u class=""></u><span style="font-family:Symbol" class=""><span class="">·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u>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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b class=""><i class="">Action item #1:</i></b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in">Group to revise the public comment review tool and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by the leadership team.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2" style="margin-left:0.5in"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b class=""><i class="">Action #2:</i></b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in">Leadership team and CCWG to fomulate answer to the Board's latest letter.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.25in"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">4. Next steps / proposed timeline</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc" class="">
<li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Chair Ching Chiao suggests to give the group 2 weeks to further comment.
<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Is a next public comment rounded needed?
<u class=""></u><u class=""></u>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle" class="">
<li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li></ul>
</li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Working Methods<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li></ul><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b class=""><i class="">Action item #3:<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span></i></b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in">Chair suggests staff and the leadership team to spend further thoughts on how to help focusing the group on the leadership recommendations.
<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc" class="">
<li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li><li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li></ul><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1" style="margin-left:0.5in">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.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space">
</span>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<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc" class="">
<li class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">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]<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></li></ul><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">5. Plans for ICANN64</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span>a. Monday 11 March – 13.30 – 15.00 local time<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span>b. Wednesday 13 March – 17.00 – 18.30 local time<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Some concerns regarding the 2nd slot. Challenging for many SO/ACs.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Staff to verify whether there is an alternative slot for the second one.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">We are most likely still in public comment review phase in Kobe, it is important for people to attend.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">6. Confirm next meeting</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">13 February 2019, 14:00 UTC.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1"><b class="">7. AOB</b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p2"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540p1">Reconfirmation of the membership. Not intended as a new call for volunteers.<span class="gmail-m_5277668886283602540apple-converted-space">
</span>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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class="">Joke Braeken</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class="">ccNSO Policy Advisor </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class=""><a href="mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:blue" class="">joke.braeken@icann.org</span></a></span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class="">Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <a href="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=" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:rgb(149,79,114)" class="">https://twitter.com/ccNSO</span>
[twitter.com]</a></span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class="">Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <a href="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=" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:rgb(149,79,114)" class="">https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/</span>
[facebook.com]</a></span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;" class=""><a href="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=" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:blue" class="">http://ccnso.icann.org</span>
[ccnso.icann.org]</a> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" class="">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>