<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I also like Elliot's addition of staff to the sentence. I think
it makes the sentence clearer and was the intent of the board</p>
<p>best,</p>
<p>Judith<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com">Judith@jhellerstein.com</a> Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.jhellerstein.com">www.jhellerstein.com</a>
Linked In: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/">www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/</a>
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/4/2019 7:13 PM, Maureen Hilyard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGj=WWQt1bT=4wz6A3eQ=b_P9KvM=5rV+ct5w07rbZ6QcK3E+A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">+1 Elliot - for the addition of staff to the
statement<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maureen</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:27 AM
elliot noss <<a href="mailto:enoss@tucows.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">enoss@tucows.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">For
greater clarity, and I know it is not directly relevant to the
particular action item, might:<br>
<br>
““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.”<br>
<br>
be ok? I just think this point is of even greater concern to
the community and any opportunity to reinforce it is useful.<br>
<br>
EN<br>
<br>
> On Apr 4, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Marika Konings <<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Dear All,<br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Marika<br>
> <br>
> From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <<a
href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Joke Braeken <<a
href="mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">joke.braeken@icann.org</a>><br>
> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:32<br>
> To: "<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>><br>
> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] action items and informal
notes from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting on
Wednesday, 27 March 2019 (14:00 UTC)<br>
> <br>
> Dear all,<br>
> <br>
> 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)<br>
> <br>
> Thank you.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Joke Braeken<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> NOTES / ACTION ITEMS<br>
> <br>
> 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw</a>
.<br>
> <br>
> 1. Roll Call<br>
> <br>
> Attendance will be taken from AC. Please remember to mute
your microphones when not speaking and state your name before
speaking for transcription purposes.<br>
> <br>
> Marilyn Cade is suggesting to have a role call. Every
participant is to state its role and affiliation. <br>
> 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.<br>
> There is no concept of "voting members". The group needs
to reach a consensus decision. Membership / participant /
observer information can also be found here: <a
href="https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw</a><br>
> <br>
> Action item #1: <br>
> 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. <br>
> <br>
> 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI updates<br>
> <br>
> Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis
and update as needed<br>
> <br>
> 3. Discuss commitment and timeline for delivering Final
Report by ICANN65 (see draft timeline attached)<br>
> <br>
> How can we ensure that we have sufficient comment from
all members to do the work and to finalise it?<br>
> Chair aims to conclude the work by this group by the
Marrakech meeting (ICANN65)<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> a. Is everyone committed to put in the work required to
deliver a Final Report by ICANN65?<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Chair is concerned that the money is frozen even longer
before the process of building the implementation team can
start. <br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
> Planning deadline around 27 April. GNSO and ccNSO have
already working on a draft schedule. EPDP also wants as much
time as possible. <br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
> Workplan to be fine-tuned, depending on how much time can
be carved out at ICANN65.<br>
> <br>
> b. How can productivity be enhanced? Longer calls, more
calls, more mailing list activity?<br>
> <br>
> • 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.<br>
> • 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.<br>
> • 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.<br>
> <br>
> • 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.<br>
> <br>
> Summary of the discussions:<br>
> • have a very early draft ready by Marrakech<br>
> • aim for a longer session at ICANN65<br>
> • extended duration of the 2-weekly calls. From 90
to 120 minutes<br>
> • discussions by the CCWG to be continued after
Marrakech<br>
> <br>
> 4. Follow up on action items coming out of ICANN64:<br>
> <br>
> a. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot,
Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for
inclusion<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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<br>
> <br>
> Consensus to add a clarification to the report, to make
clear what the Board envisaged role is? In principle there was
no objection.<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Action item #2:<br>
> Report clarification: to be discussed again during the
next meeting, due to its importance. Letter to be circulated
again to the CCWG.<br>
> <br>
> c. Status of FAQs<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Action item #3:<br>
> staff to follow-up on status of FAQs via the CCWG AP
mailing list<br>
> <br>
> 5. Continue review of public comment templates:<br>
> <br>
> a. Charter question #4 input (see template attached)<br>
> <br>
> during the previous meeting, we left off at comment
number 7.<br>
> suggestion to keep the original proposal.<br>
> <br>
> b. Charter question #5 input (see template attached)<br>
> <br>
> comment by ICANN Board. This is an area where further
guidance has been provided in previous letters.<br>
> Erika's suggestion for further investigation into an
appropriate mechanism to define COI<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Drafting needed of the guideline for the implementation
team.<br>
> 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. <br>
> <br>
> Action item #4:<br>
> Regarding COI: leadership team to formulate language,
based on Carolina's proposal<br>
> <br>
> c. Charter question #6 input (see template attached)<br>
> <br>
> Marilyn: concern about inclusion and exclusion. Who can
benefit from the project, vs where the proposal comes from. <br>
> Erika mentioned a basket approach: target certain topics,
or certain regions.<br>
> 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<br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> comment number 4<br>
> see recommendation from previous comment<br>
> <br>
> d. Charter question #7 input (see template attached)<br>
> <br>
> 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting<br>
> <br>
> Next meeting 10 April 14 UTC<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Joke Braeken<br>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor <br>
> <a href="mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">joke.braeken@icann.org</a><br>
> <br>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <a
href="https://twitter.com/ccNSO" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://twitter.com/ccNSO</a>
[<a href="http://twitter.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">twitter.com</a>]<br>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <a
href="https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/</a>
[<a href="http://facebook.com" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">facebook.com</a>]<br>
> <a href="http://ccnso.icann.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://ccnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="http://ccnso.icann.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ccnso.icann.org</a>]
<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>