[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC

Wed Mar 25 16:19:31 UTC 2020

Thank you for your notes Joke. Very much appreciated when I cannot make the
call.

Maureen

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:59 AM Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find included below the action items and notes from today’s CCWG
> new gTLD Auction Proceeds meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at
> 14.00 UTC.
>
> Notes were taken as well in the templates themselves, discussed during
> today’s meeting. Those templates will be shared with the CCWG by the end of
> the week, to allow the group to review the proposed CCWG agreements.
>
> The high-level notes included below 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 recordings are provided separately and are
> posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw . 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*
> <https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw>* .*
>
>
>
>    1. *Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates*
>
>
>
> Attendance will be taken from the zoom room.  Welcome by co-Chair Erika
> Mann.
>
> Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as
> needed
>
>
>
> *2.                   **Review of public comments on the Proposed Final
> Report (focus on responses to public comment question #4, see attached
> public comment review template)*
>
>
>
> Comment #1
>
>    - No additional comments raised.
>
>
>
> Comment #2
>
>    - Input from ICANN legal received.
>
> Comment from the BC: “The BC notes that the CCWG has already recognized
> that Bylaws must be amended to eliminate Request for Reconsideration and
> Independent Review Panel from the available remedies to challenge grants.
> These are amendments to Fundamental By-Laws and which should require
> Empowered Community approval.”
>
> ·         Question for ICANN Legal: It is the leadership team’s
> understanding that a carve out would be needed from existing accountability
> mechanisms as any Board decision could be challenged under the existing
> accountability mechanisms (including the approval of allocation of auction
> proceeds). Therefore, an exemption is needed if Board decisions on auction
> proceeds are not challengeable under existing accountability mechanisms.
> Can you confirm that this is correct?
>
> ·         *Legal Response: Yes, this is correct.  This will require an
> amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, as the BC note suggests, in order to
> effectuate this carve out.  The Fundamental Bylaws process requires
> Empowered Community approval.  This does not mean that the Empowered
> Community must approve the CCWG Final Report, though we should be clear (as
> there is cross-over between the Decisional Participants in the Empowered
> Community and the Chartering Organizations for the CCWG) that a Bylaws
> change is necessary and will be forthcoming.  Of course, the Bylaws change
> will have to be appropriately drafted and will be subject to all
> appropriate processes.*
>
>
>
> Anne: grants themselves are not Board decisions, but evaluation panel
> decisions. The response from legal relates to the bylaws amendments. The
> confusing language is "including the approval of allocation of auction
> proceeds" - allocation is normally a budget term and we have to clarify
> that EC powers are not diminished as to the overall Budget item
>
> Legal: we understood this as “how things are challenged, at large”
>
>
>
> Comment from the BC: ". . .The BC is also concerned that the final
> recommendation does not contain sufficient detail to ensure that the
> empowered community retains the ability to oversee ICANNs proposed budget
> and the disbursement of the auction proceeds. In particular, *the
> Empowered Community should retain its ability to enforce accountability
> mechanisms related to items in the ICANN budget that are proposed to be
> allocated to grant making activity*. The Final Report should also clarify
> that any changes to the bylaws needed to implement the report are not
> intended to strip the Empowered Community of its budgetary authority."
>
> ·         Question for Sam: Regarding the text in bold, it is not clear
> to the leadership team that the Empowered Community is relevant to the
> allocation of auction proceeds. As auction proceeds funds are kept and
> accounted for separately, does it even fall within the EC’s purview?
>
> ·         *Legal Response: The place where the Empowered Community's
> powers come in is only in relationship its specified powers in the Bylaws.
> The Empowered Community powers includes rejection powers on the Five-year
> strategic plan, on the Five-year operating plan, on the annual operating
> plan and on the annual budget, which would include grant making activities
> as relevant. There are no plans to change any of those Empowered Community
> powers other than in the broader scope of carving out individual
> application decisions from ICANN's Reconsideration or Independent Review
> processes. To the extent that there are items represented in ICANN's budget
> or operating plans that relate to grant making activities, the Empowered
> Community powers would be applicable.  If there are separate budgets or
> plans that are appropriate to maintain for ICANN's separate grant-making
> mechanism work, the details of how that interacts with the Bylaws-mandated
> budgets and plans will need to be addressed during implementation.*
>
>
>
> Allan: the IRP is not limited to Board Actions. Including actions or
> in-actions of staff. If someone applies for a grant, and we say no, they do
> not have a right to appeal through the accountability mechanisms.
>
> Anne: response form ICANN legal is helpful.  Language we had regarding
> change of fundamental bylaw to be reviewed by Anne.
>
> Sam: IRP does not extend to contractors. It is about whether ICANN
> followed its Bylaws/Mission.
>
> if ICANN improperly relies on actions taken by a subcontractor, then you
> challenge ICANN’s action, not the subcontractor’s action.
>
> Emily: I don’t believe there is currently language in the proposed Final
> Report addressing the Empowered Community. This may be something that the
> leadership team needs to take back and propose language to include
>
> Sam: in the future, do we need further details regarding the budgetary or
> planning powers by ECA? Language as currently in place should be sufficient.
>
> Allan: no need to mention the ECA in the report, but to be on the safe
> side, include it anyhow. We are aware of the situation. We understand that
> to change the EC, we need a fundamental bylaw change
>
> Allan: limit in the implementation guidance to the 2nd question.
>
> Sam: does not want it represented in the bylaws. Small details could cause
> interpretation issues in the bylaws
>
> Allan: put a statement in the report, that if the EC felt that the tranche
> allocated to the AP, was either too small/large it could be subject to
> community action.
>
> Erika: this was not yet discussed. Approval by board.
>
> Sam: We’d want to coordinate with Xavier on any language that addresses
> specific budget items
>
> Anne: Suggest "For the sake of clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment
> is not intended to affect the powers of the EC over the overall Budget as
> expressed in the current ByLaws".
>
> Sam: we probably want to make it a bit broader to reflect that the EC
> powers are broader than just over the budget, but I think that your
> language is a good starting point
>
>
>
> Decision:
>
> ·         frame the issue raised, do not expand language in the report
> itself, but add to the list of issues that needs to be addressed during the
> implementation phase.
>
> ·         Add language, based on Anne’s suggestion "For the sake of
> clarity, the recommended ByLaws amendment is not intended to affect the
> powers of the EC over the overall Budget as expressed in the current
> ByLaws". Take into account Sam’s remark regarding making it broader
>
>
>
> Comment #3
>
>    - No further comments by the group
>
>
>
> Comment #4
>
>    - No further comments by the group
>    - CCWG chair expresses thanks for Board involvement and input
>
>
>
> Comment #5
>
>    - Support of the leadership recommendation by Carolina, Anne, Judith,
>    Vanda
>    - Allan: similar to previous discussion regarding feasibility study /
>    assessment.
>
>
>
> Comment #6
>
>    - No further comments by the group
>
>
>
> *3.                   **AOB*
>
>
>
> *a.                   **Review of timeline to complete the CCWG’s work*
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/YFzjWps03Do8ski9kzKxI4KueUiZ2Ilh1xlBSPGTVYFKvSupyFGQjqAcxYU5waEZsXAt3EqGZ1WnFChroBgoEOfqjrKBkA5yQlukXJU5LLBjznfTGVnNxsOk8VXyjdOcFC_7Vx_Y]
>
> Thank you all. Stay safe, and take care.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20200325/3491d7d5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 113764 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20200325/3491d7d5/image001-0001.png>