Page History
PROPOSED AGENDA:
Proposed Agenda CCWG Auction Proceeds Meeting – Tuesday 27 June 2017
1. Welcome & Roll Call
2. Brief introduction to CCWG and current status of work
3. Recap of briefing on audit requirements and further questions (please review the following information in advance: https://community.icann.org/x/KGHwAw)
4. Review stage 2 activities and discuss next steps
5. Review results of survey responses to charter question #2 (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/)
6. Start process to identify questions for external experts
7. Confirm next meeting (Thursday 13 July at 14.00 UTC)
Documents for this meeting:
Intro and Status Update - 26 June 2017.pdf
Charter Question Approach Stage 2 - 24 June 2017.pdf
Proposed objectives Question #2 - 27 June 2017.pdf
Not objectives Question #2 - 27 June 2017.pdf
Attendance
Joining late:
Apologies:
Dial outs:
Notes from the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting:
Audit Requirements * Please review previous briefing and FAQ at https://community.icann.org/x/KGHwAw * If there are any further questions about this topic, please relay those to staff so these can be added to the FAQ Responses to Charter Question #2 * CCWG to review whether this adequately captures the comments received (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/) * Consider stress testing the mission limitation – words of the mission may be more limiting. Need to talk through sample submissions of whether they would violate the mission. * Buckets identified are not expected to be exclusionary. * There has to be conscious effort to determine whether things are within or outside of ICANN’s mission. Not only for staff to make that judgement – is also for the community. Ultimate decision will be for the ICANN Board though. * Examples have been identified as part of the responses – could be reviewed in a next step. Would give a flavor, not expected to be exhaustive. * How to deal with buckets that may conflict with each other? Potential segregation of multiple uses could be considered. CCWG will need to consider this further – this is just a first conversation. * Types of applicants – what would be the process for validating applicants? This will be addressed in a later phase. Certain risks will be taken on some of these things – size of grant will depend on the risk willing to be taken. Without risk there will not be any innovative work be undertaken. * Input and ideas from community will be needed on what falls within ICANN’s mission and what doesn’t as there will be obviously grey areas. Also factor in that determination of what belongs in ICANN’s mission and what doesn’t in the context of this effort could also determine in which area ICANN undertakes activities in the future. Look at the question iteratively and progressively to ensure that broader implications are understood. Input from the ICANN community is essential to that decision, but it is up to the Board to confirm that mission is being maintained * Original reference in AGB “The purpose of an auction is to resolve contention in a clear, objective manner. It is planned that costs of the new gTLD program will offset by fees, so any funds coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as auctions would result (after paying for the auction process) in additional funding. Any proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses of funds are determined. Funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN’s Mission and Core Values and also allows ICANN to maintain its not for profit status.Possible uses of auction funds include formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community, such as grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities in subsequent gTLD rounds, the creation of an ICANN-administered/community-based fund for specific projects for the benefit of the Internet community, the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants (ensuring that funds would be in place to support the operation of a gTLD registry until a successor could be found), or establishment of a security fund to expand use of secure protocols, conduct research, and support standards development organizations in accordance with ICANN's security and stability mission”. * Examples included in AGB reference could be stress tested as it predates the current wording of ICANN’s mission. Consider adding mission statement to the documents so that it becomes easier to evaluate. * Consider rewording the first buckets of what shouldn’t be objectives so it is more aligned with what was in the AGB. Action item #1: CCWG members to review survey summary (see attached) and provide input on buckets identified and whether any information is missing or mischaracterized. Input to be provided prior to the next meeting (scheduled for 13 July). Action item #2: Share additional comments received for WG review (see attached). * In order to obtain input in relation to charter questions #4 and #7 – launch straw person type of survey. Draw from the initial input received during the phase 1. Share preview of the survey before launching it. Launch prior to next meeting. Action item #3: staff to launch survey on question #4 and #7, with preliminary responses based on initial input received as well as opportunity for open ended responses. Questions for external experts * How to start process to identify questions for external experts. List has already been created to identify potential experts to be approached (see https://community.icann.org/x/DAnfAw). Develop questions and send those to the identified experts. Action item #4: staff to create google doc to allow for CCWG members and participants to identify questions that should be asked from external experts.
