[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item

Wed Feb 13 01:04:38 UTC 2019

Thank you Vanda, Daniel, Elliot, All - Let's talk tomorrow. I'm sure we
will get this done.
Erika

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:05 AM Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
wrote:

> I have reviewed all document and make my points saving it with - VS at the
> name, as attached.
>
>  Just in case I will not arrive timely for our meeting tomorrow, all my
> points are written there.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kisses
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *Polo Consultores Associados*
>
> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
>
> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
>
> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
>
> *Sorry for any typos. *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, February 11, 2019 at 21:24
> *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: Reminder CCWG Action Item
>
>
>
> Reminder: *Action item #1*: Group to revise the public comment review
> tool (see attached) and to share thoughts on the recommendations made by
> the leadership team.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 09:28
> *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30 January 2019
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
>
>
> = = = = = = =
>
>
>
> *Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – 30
> January 2019*
>
>
>
> *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
> <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.
>
>
>
> *2. Welcome & SOI/DOI updates*
>
> Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as
> needed
>
>
>
> *3. Proposed approach for reviewing / addressing public comments:*
>
> *a. Present proposed approach*
>
> i. Acknowledge those comments that are in support of the proposed
> recommendations or recommend minor updates
>
> ii. Leadership team to put forward proposed approach for those comments
> that are either new or differ from the proposed recommendations
>
> iii.      CCWG to review items in category 2 and flag for which the
> proposed approach is not supported or where an alternative is needed
>
> iv.      CCWG to implement proposed approach as agreed upon under 3
>
> *b. CCWG comments / input on proposed approach*
>
> *c. Deliberate on comments identified as requiring further deliberation,
> as an example.*
>
>
>
> ·          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.
>
> ·          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.
>
> ·          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.
>
> ·          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".
>
> ·          Way to develop a workplan for the next phase: we can line up
> the items that require further consideration.
>
> ·          example page 8: this recommendation is suggesting to consider
> enhancing option A. Staff labeled this a "new idea”, and put together some
> preliminary recommendations.
>
> ·          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
>
> ·          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.
>
>
>
> *Action item #1:*
>
> Group to revise the public comment review tool and to share thoughts on
> the recommendations made by the leadership team.
>
>
>
> *Action #2:*
>
> Leadership team and CCWG to fomulate answer to the Board's latest letter.
>
>
>
>
>
> *4. Next steps / proposed timeline*
>
>
>
> ·          Chair Ching Chiao suggests to give the group 2 weeks to
> further comment.
>
> ·          Is a next public comment rounded needed?
>
> o    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.
>
> o    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.
>
>
> o    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.
>
> o    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.
>
> ·          Working Methods
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> *Action item #3: *
>
> Chair suggests staff and the leadership team to spend further thoughts on
> how to help focusing the group on the leadership recommendations.
>
>
>
> ·          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.
>
> ·          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.
>
> ·          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
>
> 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.  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
>
> ·          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]
>
>
>
>
>
> *5. Plans for ICANN64*
>
>
>
>     a. Monday 11 March – 13.30 – 15.00 local time
>
>     b. Wednesday 13 March – 17.00 – 18.30 local time
>
>
>
> Some concerns regarding the 2nd slot. Challenging for many SO/ACs.
>
> Staff to verify whether there is an alternative slot for the second one.
>
> We are most likely still in public comment review phase in Kobe, it is
> important for people to attend.
>
>
>
> *6. Confirm next meeting*
>
>
>
> 13 February 2019, 14:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> *7. AOB*
>
>
>
> Reconfirmation of the membership. Not intended as a new call for
> volunteers.  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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> joke.braeken at icann.org
>
>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]
> <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=>
>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
> [facebook.com]
> <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=>
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]
> <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=>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20190212/484bc653/attachment-0001.html>