MP3 recording:

AC Recording

Presentationnew gTLD Auction Proceeds - Slides - 12 October 2016.pdf


Chat transcript:

Nathalie Peregrine: (10/13/2016 09:47) Dear all, welcome to the Webinar on new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter on the 13 October 2016
  Eduardo Diaz - NARALO: (10:08) Can you provide links to these documents? 
  Marika Konings: (10:10) @Eduardo - I will post the slide deck now on the DT wiki space and get the link to you in a minute.
  Eduardo Diaz - NARALO: (10:16) CAn you give an example of what will be considered a conflict of interest in the CCWG?
  Marika Konings: (10:17) @Eduardo - further information in relation to conflict of interest declarations will follow later in the presentation so that may address your question. 
  Eduardo Diaz - NARALO: (10:17) @MArika: Ok. Thnaks.
  Kurt Pritz: (10:22) Q for end: Can the principles / constriants include measurement? I.e., can there be an a priori and after the fact measurement of return, NPV or payback? This need not always be quantitative but there should be a promised and measured return. The actual return should be taken into account in future requests. Finally (sorry for this long comment), and consistent with measurement, we could use the term "use" of funds, rather than "disubursement," which, to me connotes more of an unconditional grant or gift. 
  Marika Konings: (10:24) @Kurt - that is probably something for the CCWG to determine?
  ken stubbs: (10:25) very concerned about overhead & feel that independent evaluators s/b hired by independent committee to evaluate proposals & measure admin costs. 
  Becky Burr: (10:25) @Kurt and Marika - any good program would build in measurement as Kurt suggests.  Don't see how we could proceed without the ability to understand what has been accomplished
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:25) @Kurt, excellent points and something we have considered in the drafting team.  However, the exact details of how NPV/return should be measured (and your points are valid) here would be what the CCWG would convene to determine
  Marika Konings: (10:25) @Becky - exactly, and that is why it has been called out as a specific question for the CCWG to address.
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:26) What the charter drafting team needs to do and has done is specify that the CCWG should address this.
  Marika Konings: (10:26) @Ken - and the issue of overhead is also specifically called out. What is an appropriate level of overhead?
  ken stubbs: (10:26) we have for the last 5-7 years had public committments that $$ would not be appropriated to ICANN.  this was essential purpose for co-mingling
  Kurt Pritz: (10:27) I am not advocating this group determine the measurement but rather that it is a principle for how the ICANN community invests this money.
  Olof Nordling: (10:27) How many Chartering Organzations would need to sign up for a launch of the CCWG?
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:27) Agree Kurt
  Alan Greenberg: (10:27) @Kurt, it would be insane to give out this amount of money with no attempt to identify if the money is being used effectively. The difficulty is not spending too much of the money on that evluation.
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:28) ROI is an art and a science :-)
  Marika Konings: (10:28) @Olof - I believe according to the new CWG Principles, it just requires two, but from indications so far, it seems here is broad interest across SO/ACs to join this effort as a chartering organization. 
  Kurt Pritz: (10:28) To Ken's point, another prinicple could be benchmarking against other similarly situated organzations that create a foundation of this type. What is typical or hoped-for overhead rates. 
  Alan Greenberg: (10:28) I'm not sure "ROI" is the real measure we are after though.
  Olof Nordling: (10:28) Thanks Marika!
  Marika Konings: (10:29) @Kurt - that is also something that is recommended in the charter. Of course, what you see in the screen is a summarized version, so for the full details, please review the complete charter.
  Becky Burr: (10:29) there are people who know precisely how to do the required measurement.  we should not reinvent that wheel.  agree re benchmarking
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:29) @Alan in my opinion yes ROI would be one of the measures - one can look at ROI of both tangible and intangible benefits
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:29) exactly Becky
  ken stubbs: (10:32) including providing consulting services to potential applicants
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:33) @ken could you elaborate?
  ken stubbs: (10:34) no person could be a member of the cwg if they are providing consulting services for a potential applicant . thoughts ?
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:34) @ken yes - that is covered in the enhanced CoI 
  Marika Konings: (10:34) @Ken - the way it is currently framed members/participants just need to declare that conflict, but they are not prevented from participating. 
  Alan Greenberg: (10:35) Ken, there was a lot of concern about this sort of thing, but in the end we are recommending that there be no limit on who can participate, but they must make full declarations. Pretty much like participation in an SO.
  Eduardo Diaz - NARALO: (10:35) Is there a definitive tiemline for the expected next steps?
  ken stubbs: (10:35) i would be quite concerned about this item (only speaking personally)
  Alan Greenberg: (10:36) @Ken, as were the DT members. But departing from the ICANN model of restricting WG participation seemed to go  to a place we also didn't want to go to.
  ken stubbs: (10:38) does the icann board allow voting or advocacy where a clear conflict exists ?
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:38) @Ken agree with Alan in that we had quite a few strong debates on this but we had the concern that we could not openly restrict participation.  Would like your views on this
  Becky Burr: (10:38) @Ken, no
  Becky Burr: (10:39) but the WG won't be deciding on applications
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:41) @Ken, the CCWG will decide on the process/framework and another group actually disburses the funds..
  Marika Konings: (10:43) @Ken - any recommendations would go out for public comment and will need to be approved by Chartering Organizations, so there are a number of checks and balances in place that would hopefully prevent such 'gaming'.
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:43) @Ken, The Board would not do anything about the membership of the group.  HOWEVER, the Board has an obligation to make sure that the decisions that it makes are free from conflict of interest
  Marika Konings: (10:43) and of course, the Board will need to sign off at the end of the day. 
  James Bladel: (10:43) To Ken's point - I'm hopeful that the CCWG looks at ways to spin this out of ICANN etnirely (e.g. independent foundation/development fund/etc.)
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:43) @jonathan, I cannot speak now, please could you read out my comment
  Marika Konings: (10:43) also, a consensus call is never done solely on numbers, it would factor in affiliation / representation. 
  ken stubbs: (10:43) +1 james
  Jonathan Robinson: (10:45) @Asha. Please repste comment so I know which one to read out / communicate
  Jonathan Robinson: (10:45) repost
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:46) Asha Hemrajani: @Ken, The Board would not do anything about the membership of the group.  HOWEVER, the Board has an obligation to make sure that the decisions that it makes are free from conflict of interest
  Samantha Eisner: (10:47) @James, as the entity that the funds come from, there will always be some level of responsibility for ICANN to make sure that the funds are going to intended purposes.  Of course, the disbursement mechanism could be independent from ICANN, but there would have to be some governance/reporting structure in place to report back to ICANN
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:48) Exactly Samantha, the eventual organization cannot be completely spun out of ICANN
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:48) comment above with reference to James and Ken's comments
  Samantha Eisner: (10:50) +1 Jonathan
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:50) Yes Jonathan
  James Bladel: (10:51) Thanks, Sam. Implementation detials aside, the general idea is that there is arm's length between ICANN and the evaluation proposals / distribution of funds.
  Erika Mann: (10:52) True independence, I doubt that even the board should adminster this 
  Becky Burr: (10:53) +1 Erika
  James Bladel: (10:53) Agree with Erika.
  Erika Mann: (10:54) Hi Jonathan, I had difficulties in joining but heard part of the discussion and are fully online now 
  ken stubbs: (10:54) agree with erika.. icann board doesn't administrate. principal function ther s/b evaluative
  ken stubbs: (10:56) my comments related to board evaluating adherence to established guidelines . they have competence to deal with this
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:57) @Ken yes that was my point - the board has the responsibility to oversee that guidelines are adhered to, that we are upholding our fiduciary responsibilites and that the conflict of interest principles are not violated.  
  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (10:58) Thanks Jonathan!
  ken stubbs: (10:58) thx jonathan
  James Bladel: (10:58) Thanks Jonathan & ALan.
  Markus Kummer: (10:58) Thanks, Jonathan -- good briefing. Bye all
  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (10:58) bye
  Becky Burr: (10:58) thanks all
  Asha Hemrajani: (10:58) Thanks and bye!
  Erika Mann: (10:58) Thanks Jonathan, team
  • No labels