There will be a CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call that will be held on Thursday 11 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, 17:00 Istanbul, 22:00 Singapore, 00:00 Melbourne
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/m7prtqn
PROPOSED AGENDA:
- Start of meeting / Roll Call
- Welcome – DOI Updates
- Status of response to ICANN Board
- Distribution of work plan and proposed approach for dealing with charter questions
- Initial run through of charter question 11 (see attached template)
- Initial run through of charter question 2 (see attached template)
- Initial run through of charter question 4, if time allows (see attached template)
- Share plans for ICANN59 and confirm next meeting – Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC
Documents
11May CCWG Charter Question 2 Template 8 May 2017.pdf
11May CCWG Charter Question 4 Template 8 May 2017.pdf
11May CCWG Charter Question 11 Template 8 May 2017.pdf
Joining late: Ching Chiao
Apologies: Elliot Noss, Alice Munyua, Kavouss Arasteh, Jonathan Robinson, Mary Uduma, Jacob Odame-Baiden, Sylvia Cadena
Dial outs: Marika Konings
Notes from the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting:
Start of meeting / Roll Call
· Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect
· Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and to state your name when speaking for transcription purposes
2. Welcome – DOI Updates
· Erika Mann may not join due to electricity issues
· Remember to update your DOI and communicate any changes to the mailing list
· In relation to question 6, important to communicate information to the best of your knowledge, recognising that changes could occur at a later point in time.
· Reminder - All DOIs can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FpjDAw
3.Status of response to ICANN Board
· Response ready to be sent
· Should cover all issues raised by CCWG
Action item #1: Leadership team to send response to ICANN Board
4. Distribution of work plan and proposed approach for dealing with charter questions
· No further input received on the work plan / proposed approach
· Leadership team would like to propose to communicate the work plan and proposed approach to chartering organizations to set expectations
· Work plan will be kept up to date as work progresses. End of year deadline is not a hard deadline - CCWG can adjust as needed, either with regards to deadline or speed with which deliberations are conducted.
Action item #2: Leadership team to draft a cover note to be used by members for sharing work plan and proposed approach for dealing with the charter questions.
Action item #3: following finalisation of cover note, CO appointed members to communicate cover note and work plan & proposed approach to chartering organisations
5. Initial run through of charter question 11
· See template shared
· Note that a briefing on audit requirements is being planned
· Overall there appears to be support for having a review mechanism, with several noting the importance of community involvement in any such review. Specific criteria may need to be further defined and may differ depending on which aspects are being reviewed (e.g. overall framework and/or scope vs. specific projects).
· Once the mechanism is selected, CCWG should brainstorm possible scenarios which would trigger a review mechanism and based on that, propose alternatives for the review
· Add a sub-question to already start brainstorming on options: what review mechanisms should be put in place / what are the criteria for any kind of review mechanism / what possible scenarios should trigger a review (for example, Time, $ dispersed and red flags from project reviews or audits)?
· Focus should be on review of overall mechanism, not individual projects (that would be subject to a separate review mechanism)
Action item #4: Staff to update template in line with CCWG input
6. Initial run through of charter question 2 (see attached template)
· See template shared
· What would be the best way to tackle this specific charter question? Some have suggested started with a list of criteria.
· Need to consider magnitude of grants - how big or small limits? Small grants could increase overall overhead so might be less desirable? Not necessarily - there are examples in which this is not an issue (for example .NL foundation). This topic may also get discussed as part of charter question #4.
· Defining objectives for funding would be a good starting point. Relation between proposed uses of funds and ICANN's mission is important - for example, relationship could be required to be demonstrated as part of fund applications. Objectives shouldn't limit / constrain innovative ideas / projects. Shouldn't be limited to what ICANN currently already does.
· Consider setting up a survey that would ask CCWG to identify objectives for fund allocation, factoring in ICANN's mission and legal/fiduciary constraints. Could also identify what shouldn't be the objective.
· Also consider running a few scenarios to understand what the CCWG would be considered covered by the mission and what not. Approach could be few objectives but allow these objectives to be modified/complemented by specific scenarios and/or applications.
Action item #5: Staff to develop survey to facilitate input to this charter question.
7. Initial run through of charter question 4, if time allows
· See template shared
· Template already reflects some of the discussion that took place in relation to this topic on the mailing list.
· Bring this back to the next meeting for further review and input.
8. Share plans for ICANN59 and confirm next meeting – Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC
· CCWG has been tentatively scheduled as part of the GNSO schedule for Tuesday 27 June from 13.30 - 15.00 local time.
· Next meeting scheduled for Thursday 25 May at 14.00 UTC
