[Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds] mp3 and attendance new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team 23 June 2016
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Thu Jun 23 13:51:28 UTC 2016
Dear All,
Please find the MP3 recording for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team held on 23 June 2016 at 11:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-23jun16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsuDGgbutH3nVNCyFQnIoBtiHFTcaeu4QmqxpOexJvnwAl7DO542ok5oNjiI-2BxUcfZg-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmvPdma2kjQv4-2Fbh3vJMxnvbKrPLmuvkCfrxeKFHFjJjodp2SWnfJmjZzXKobWTuHGAd37fEYiDsYCJGrQcAJ5Imo3JtjrKgIJb0bMeQvfFUiY0fW3KTze8cNjoaoReGT7QX8Y09iDtU56T-2BS7diST4iLDj22Sw43pNkZmvEX3hEf0qXfb-2BzQCgWgXii7oBBzBmHXZ1wWTFdsDI7F3stwUf3lDOr1uNSO0W3sQQJlUgXOuOxYVPpX8ZQVQr7-2FFZE5Le4shX4GLjBdano-2BMQadb-2BBY-2BIp8vDbiPJAQWepBrK0L>
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt-cwg-auctionproceeds/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/px6AAw
Attendees:
ALAC
Alan Greenberg
ASO
None
ccNSO
Will not be participating in the drafting team
GAC
Olga Cavalli
GNSO
Tony Harris
Jonathan Robinson
RSSAC
Brad Verd
SSAC
Russ Mundy
Lyman Chapin
Board
Board Liaisons
Erika Mann
Asha Hemrajani
Board appointed staff advisors
none
Apologies:
Sylvia Cadena
Samantha Eisner (Board appointed staff advisor)
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Julie Hedlund
David Tait
Terri Agnew
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 23 June 2016
Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter Drafting Team held on Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 11:00 UTC
Erika Mann:I joined the call ... checking now to test Adobe audio
Erika Mann:checking
Olga Cavalli:Hello all!
Erika Mann:Audio seems not to be working ...
Olga Cavalli:there is audio now
Olga Cavalli:yes tony!
Asha Hemrajani:I have activated my mic, but it does not seem to be working
Jonathan Robinson:Hello All. I am now in.
Erika Mann:I had the same problem Asha. Just try again. click on phone and then you see the options.
Alan Greenberg:A bit early for you Terri!
Erika Mann:Jonathan +1
Asha Hemrajani:agreed
Erika Mann:+1 - good formulation
Asha Hemrajani:fine with "from the perspective of the Board"
Asha Hemrajani:I think you need both "avoid" and "deal with"
Asha Hemrajani:not possible to avoid completely
Erika Mann:+1 (conflict of interest - I'm fine with this)
Erika Mann:Maybe in add adding one word we are fine, how about 'take all appropriated measures ...' (?)
Marika Konings:Something like this: Take appropriate measures to deal with conflicts of interest, which includes disclosure as part of CCWG deliberations as well as avoiding conflicts of interest in subsequent recommendations.
Alan Greenberg:disclose and/or avoid as applicable
Marika Konings:the latter should probably be avoiding conflicts of interest as part of subsequent recommendations
Marika Konings:I've lost audio - will reconnect to AC
Marika Konings:it's back
Alan Greenberg:that's fine with me.
Asha Hemrajani:that would work with me
Erika Mann:+1 fine with me
Marika Konings:got it
Asha Hemrajani:i prefer consistent with as well
Asha Hemrajani:where are you now Jonathan
Asha Hemrajani:got it
Olga Cavalli:im lost in the document which page now?
Erika Mann:Russ, thought the same about consistent ... take just one wording
Asha Hemrajani:@olga page 3
Olga Cavalli:thanks
Erika Mann:We have the board meeting tomorrow
RussMundy-SSAC:I think at this point, my preference is to drop the "fully" term from the second use
Erika Mann:Correct Jonathan
RussMundy-SSAC:I'd be fine with "not inconsistent"
Asha Hemrajani:re consistency with the mission as we will be presenting to the Board tomorrow afternoon, we should be able to give you feedback afterwards
Erika Mann:Jonathan - we should take this to the community
Alan Greenberg:Which conflict instance are we on?
Erika Mann:Alan - the yellow highlighted part
Tony Harris:Agree with Asha
Tony Harris:Change policy for requirement
Asha Hemrajani:I like the question that Marika proposed (as an example)
Erika Mann:conflict of interest POLICY would have to be defined indeed, agree with Tony, requirement is probably more appropriate
Alan Greenberg:We have already mentioned it in the GOALS and leadin to SCOPE. Thisis the third reference!
Asha Hemrajani:@alan true but this is important
Asha Hemrajani:@alan I am ok with reducing the number of references
Alan Greenberg:Andyet anotherreference to come...
Asha Hemrajani:but we need to be very specific - that we need high standards re COI - so the CCWG should be populated appropriately
Asha Hemrajani:Agree Jonathan
Alan Greenberg:Population of the CCWG is one area where, if we think CoI is an issue, we SHOULDbe specific.
Erika Mann:We should have few but very clear references to this topic
Asha Hemrajani:+1 Alan - this is something that needs to be further clarified
Erika Mann:Agree with Alan
RussMundy-SSAC:Just to raise an example "Will there be any differentiation between CCWG "Members" & "Contributors" ? (if they exit)
Asha Hemrajani:@jonathan, so can we add something about the population of the CCWG?
Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. It seems to me that this is part of the prosepctive recommendation we make and the feedback we seek.
Marika Konings:Asha - correct, CO appointed members, participants and observers are the current categories
Marika Konings:currently SOI requirements are the same for members and participants
Marika Konings:no SOI required for observers
Alan Greenberg:I think we will be on reallyshaky ground if we limit participants and we have alreadysaid that part and members are for most purposes equal.
Marika Konings:currently participants are also asked to declare their interests in the work
RussMundy-SSAC:@Marika: thanks for the proper categories
Asha Hemrajani:that is the problem Alan - in the CCWG Accountability - members & participants are on par
Marika Konings:although there is currently no policing of SOIs
Asha Hemrajani:so that standards should apply to both members and participants
Asha Hemrajani:but not observers
Erika Mann:Exactly
Erika Mann:Jonathan, exactly, that't the way I would see it
Asha Hemrajani:Jonathan +1
Erika Mann:Members/participants ... then keep the same language
Asha Hemrajani:no need to distinguish between members and participants
RussMundy-SSAC:So do we need to differentiate between requiring a Conflict of Interest requirement from those that need a Statement of Interest?
Terri Agnew:Welcome Lyman
Asha Hemrajani:@russ I think everyone needs to put in a SoI
Asha Hemrajani:with mandatory disclosures for members and participants
Erika Mann:Disclosure requirements are good
RussMundy-SSAC:It does seem to me that we should stick with a requirement for Statement of Interest from all but not require anyone to submit Conflict of Interest at this point?
Asha Hemrajani:yes and my suggestion is to have some text to go to the community with
Marika Konings:we can update the section that talks about requiring an SOI
Asha Hemrajani:happy to work with you on the draft
Marika Konings:which is further down in the charter
Marika Konings:to clarify that the SOI would also need to be accompanied by certain mandatory disclosures
Asha Hemrajani:where are you now?
Erika Mann:Jonathan plus 1
Asha Hemrajani:ok
Asha Hemrajani:ah so you mean adding to the yellow text
Asha Hemrajani:sounds good
Erika Mann:Yes, Asha, adding to the yellow part
bverd (RSSAC):Mandatory implies there are implications if you don't provide them. Do we specify what those implications are?
Asha Hemrajani:I agree Jonathan, we will have to revisit this after Helsinki
Jonathan Robinson:@bverd. Good point. IS disclosure sufficient or will that (at some point) preclude participation?
Alan Greenberg:For the CCWG ALL we can do is disclosure. Otherwise we need a process for vetting membership and prarticipation.
Jonathan Robinson:@Marika. That's a good suggestion. I see no reasono why not to include draft language along those lines. Provison of SOI is amandatory
Marika Konings:I believe it is noted further down, although it does not include what happens if the information is not provided
Asha Hemrajani:@brad I think there has to be some threshold for precluding participation otherwise what is the point of going through this exercise? If there are potential members who come from an organization who will definitely apply for the funds, then the CCWG has to make a call as to whether or not this person can join the CCWG
Asha Hemrajani:we are on page 4
Erika Mann:Page 5 or 4 ?
Erika Mann:Got you Jonathan, happy to withdraw my objection
Tony Harris:Erika has made a good point, funding expertise
Asha Hemrajani:+1 Alan
Jonathan Robinson:@Alan - agreed - change to interest (and ideally expertise?)
Erika Mann:Fine
RussMundy-SSAC:I like this change of wording
Marika Konings:I believe that is in line with current practice (can if an CO wants to)
Erika Mann:Good proposal Jonathan
Asha Hemrajani:agreed
bverd (RSSAC):+1
Olga Cavalli:ok
Olga Cavalli:please remind me date time
Marika Konings:For the organisation of the session, we would need to know how many people (and ideally whom) would be sitting up front
Erika Mann:Agree Jonathan about format and presentation ... it would be good indeed to antizipate questions
Asha Hemrajani:I agree with your suggestion. I will be attending
Erika Mann:Yes, I agree Jonathan
Marika Konings:@Olga - Tuesday from 15.15 - 16.45 (see http://sched.co/7NE0)
Marika Konings:Do you want to go through the whole presentation + questions and then open it up, or pause at specific sections & questions?
Olga Cavalli:agree with asha
Marika Konings:my question was more related to the actual session :-)
Marika Konings:I can add a status of the process slide up front
Erika Mann:Russ, we can't hear you
Jonathan Robinson:@Marika; PROCESS ADN POINT IN PROCESS / STAtus
Asha Hemrajani:@marika Lauren has a process slide drafted, might be of use here. Perhaps you could touch base with her
Erika Mann:Good point Russ, we have to mention this as well
Marika Konings:@Asha - thanks, I will check in with her
Marika Konings:@Jonathan - yes, process and point in process
Marika Konings:happy to bullet but was concerned that it would lose some of the details as not everyone may have taken the time to review the charter ahead of the meeting
RussMundy-SSAC:I agree with Alan's point that we should mention this possibility
Erika Mann:My advise is not to do this but keep this procedure limited to the AP fund
Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Alan +1
RussMundy-SSAC:I think that we also mentioned that the CCWG could design a "longer lived" process
Erika Mann:... I raised my hand as well Jonathan
Alan Greenberg:By saying that the processes *could* be used post this $100m, we are delinking the usage from the source which I think is an important issue.
Jonathan Robinson:@Asha. Yes. Be good for Marika to get that from Lauren. IN fact any relevant (non-confidential) board materials on this subject could be helpful
Jonathan Robinson:@All. Shall we ask the community on this one? Once off or more longvity?
Alan Greenberg:This is a one-of disbursement. But the process could be applicable in the future.
Alan Greenberg:If we find this process has worked and there is more money.
Erika Mann:Jonathan, I raised my hand
Asha Hemrajani:@alan, it could be if there is another pool of funds, the new group set up to look into disbursement may choose to re-use the processes that this particular CCWG has come up with, but they may choose not to.
Asha Hemrajani:they may choose to improve on it, based on lessons learned
Alan Greenberg:@Asha, agreed. In fact, I am optimistic that the CCWG will include a review process to verify whether the disbursement process is working well. It could even trigger changes before the funds are fully used.
Asha Hemrajani:I see what Erika is coming from - I agree with her - perhaps we should not open this debate at this moment.
Alan Greenberg:@Erika, Im happyto be silent.
Asha Hemrajani:closed to the auction proceeds of the current gTLD round.
Asha Hemrajani:sounds good
Erika Mann:I'm fine with this Jonathan
Erika Mann:Russ, you are muted
Jonathan Robinson:Have to wrap up in 5 mins. Apologies.
Erika Mann:Agree
Lyman Chapin (SSAC):@Russ Is it useful to distinguish between the group (a CCWG) and the process?
Alan Greenberg:We have done a lot... Happy to close now
RussMundy-SSAC:@Lyman: yes, it might be useful to differentiate them
RussMundy-SSAC:good meeting - thanks to all
Asha Hemrajani:@lyman good point
Erika Mann:Safe travels all
Asha Hemrajani:Thanks all
Asha Hemrajani:bye!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt-cwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20160623/e83f3875/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Dt-cwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list