Page History
Please find the meeting information below for the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y2sjgvar
| Info |
|---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
i. Following finalization of proposed Final Report (ideally by the end of this week), launch indicative survey. ii. Share results of indicative survey prior to ICANN66 to allow CCWG members to consult with their respective groups. iii. Consider chartering organization responses during ICANN66 and plan for definitive survey shortly following ICANN66. iv. Publish proposed final report for public comment, including proposed CCWG recommendation in relation to mechanism(s) shortly after ICANN66 (after completion of survey). c. Page 14/15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to flag that further details be provided in the implementation phase in relation to the roles and responsibilities regardless of mechanism chosen? d. Page 15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to the description of the evaluation panel? e. Page 17/18/19/22 – note updates made following 18/9 meeting. f. Page 23 – any concerns about the proposed clarification in relation to mechanism C and ability for ICANN to apply for funds? g. Page 24 – any concerns about the proposed modification in relation to programmatic adjustments and baskets? h. Page 26 – Consider Board input and decide whether updates should be made to this section. i. Page 27/28 – any concerns in relation to the updates made to change OEC to ‘through a committee if appropriate’ following Board input? j. Page 28 – consider Board input on topic of compensation and decide whether any updates should be made to this paragraph. k. Page 39 – any concerns in relation to the proposed modification to point 5 in line with the Board’s input? l. Any other issues? 5. Confirm next steps: a. Launch of survey – yes/no, timing? b. Launch of public comment period – timing? c. ICANN66 session – proposed approach d. Confirm action items / immediate next steps e. AOB BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS new gTLD AP CCWG Draft Final Report - updated 21 October 2019 |
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Elliot Noss |
| Note |
|---|
Notes/ Action Items
No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome / DOI & SOI updates Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Sarah Deutsch and Danko Jevtovic, as new Board Liaisons. 3. Current status of work a. Input received from ICANN Board & ICANN Org in relation to clarifying questions posed by CCWG (seehttps://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Additional+Questions+and+Responses) b. Survey not launched yet as input from ICANN Board, especially on mechanism C, was deemed essential to inform survey. CCWG to consider whether to launch poll in light of clarifications, or forego for now? c. Staff & leadership team have proposed a number of updates to proposed Final Report in line with clarifications provided by ICANN Board & ICANN Org. A couple of outstanding items remain for CCWG consideration. d. In light of Board’s suggestion and previous CCWG considerations, proposal is to prepare launch of public comment on proposed Final Report, either before ICANN66 or immediately thereafter.
4. Outstanding issues a. Page 8 – any concerns about the proposed modification of the description for mechanism A?
The word “evaluation” was confusing. Marylin: Definition from Mechanism B became too limited. Suggestion to copy the definition from Mechanism A Allan: internal department, but still independent from ICANN org? That is a contradiction. New department, shielded from rest of ICANN. Erika: similar to IANA, this was discussed previously Becky: Allan is correct that the notion that a department within ICANN being independent is difficult. Management of the programme, for administration, would be part of icann. That is the understanding of the Board of this mechanism Sam: agrees with Becky and Allan. Suggestion: “functionally separated”. IANA is an affiliate, but is not independent of ICANN. Remove the “independent”. Evaluations are done by an independent panel. Erika: To avoid misunderstandings, add a sentence when introducing the mechanisms that the mechanisms are further detailed further on in the document. Allan: same level of detail needed for all 3 mechanism descriptions
Action item #1: Leadership team to send out revised language 5.1. (selection of the mechanism) with the CCWG
b. Page 13 – should a poll be conducted prior to publication of the proposed Final Report or is the CCWG in a position to provide a proposed recommendation in relation whether to recommend 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms?
Report: 5.1. Selection of the mechanism Feedback is making additional context in answering charter Q1. There is no proposed text yet. It will be the recommendation of the CCWG. Allan: clear board statements regarding the independence, and regarding the funds not being available in one tranche. Do we still support the foundation? Marylin: supported mechanism C. support in 1st round of public comments. Those who supported an independent foundation, understand the overall and overarching requirement from the Board, to have final authority over the direction. Significant amount of independence from ICANN and ICANN org is possible in an ICANN foundation. Erika: separate the financial cost. Has to be included elsewhere, or in the guidelines. Take the key points of the board (oversight) to be attached to all 3 mechanisms. When we go into further details for B and C, we have to make clear that the oversight function remains in place Emily: Incorporate the Board’s point in the response to Charter Q1.
Proposed leadership next steps: i. Following finalization of proposed Final Report (ideally by the end of this week), launch indicative survey. ii. Share results of indicative survey prior to ICANN66 to allow CCWG members to consult with their respective groups. iii. Consider chartering organization responses during ICANN66 and plan for definitive survey shortly following ICANN66 iv. Publish proposed final report for public comment, including proposed CCWG recommendation in relation to mechanism(s) shortly after ICANN66 (after completion of survey). c. Page 14/15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to flag that further details be provided in the implementation phase in relation to the roles and responsibilities regardless of mechanism chosen? d. Page 15 – any concerns about the proposed modifications to the description of the evaluation panel? Erika: Careful that we do not end up in a situation where we say that they cannot come from the community. ICANN participants? We do not need to be too restrictive. Becky: we were not ruling out anything. They needed to be entirely independent and essentially no potential conflict of interest. Having a consistent panel that makes the selection would be preferred. Erika: they can still come from the participants, but not from the community. That is something we need to clear up, this sounds contradictory. Allan: some said the panel must (not) come from the community, We cannot satisfy all. We need to be precise in our terminology. Emily: The suggested text is based on the following from the Board’s feedback: “the Evaluation Panel should also be independent of ICANN itself and its constituent parts, including the Board, ICANN org, and the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up the ICANN community. As we have emphasized during CCWG meetings, in Board correspondence, and in subsequent CCWG documentation, neither the Board nor ICANN org will participate in the evaluation of individual applications, nor should any SO or AC be represented - directly or indirectly - on the Evaluation Panel itself. As indicated above; however, we do see an important role for the community outside of the actual evaluation and selection process. “ Becky: There are 3 criteria - 1. No direct or indirect representation of ICANN and constituent parts; 2. Expertise; and 3. No potential conflict of interest Action item#2: rephrase: ICANN participants in their individual capacity. We are excluding the organisational part of ICANN, but not the individuals, if they meet all criteria. Marylin’s suggestion to be used from the meeting recording e. Page 17/18/19/22 – note updates made following 18/9 meeting. Page 19. Proposed edits by Erika regarding mechanism C Xavier: would like to comment on the paragraph and propose some edits. Moreover, Xavier has some comments regarding mechanism A. In Mechanism A, the notion that (i) an internal department is created, (ii) it is functionally separated appears to contradict entirely the definition of this scenario. Under this scenario, what is the rationale to have separation of the department within ICANN org? In addition, it is not actually meaningful to define how activities need to be organized within ICANN org as this is a CEO prerogative and authority. f. Page 23 – any concerns about the proposed clarification in relation to mechanism C and ability for ICANN to apply for funds? Erika: Mechanism where the fund is not transferred to the icann foundation, but remains with the mother company. Not the traditional model Argument about self-dealing concerns would be even higher from a public perspective in case the mechanism is in-house. Sam: "self-dealing" as a regulatory risk is different from the restraints that the community would expect to put on ICANN for the handling of the funds. "retention" in this instance means that ICANN does not transfer the funds to the intermediary foundation before releasing to the applicants. There is no aspect of “bribery” here. Also, this response was not about ICANN repurposing auction proceeds funds prior to tranches. We were asked a question about ICANN having access to funds as approved through the evaluation process. Under Mechanism C, there is a self-dealing concern if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds . there is NOT the same self-dealing concern, regulatorily speaking, if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds under A or B . Marika: There is language that conveys the icann org input, the input provided by Sam. Action item #3: review language. Does it apply to only mechanism C? Or to A and B as well? Suggested text based on ICANN Board feedback on basketing to be included here. Otherwise to be moved to the guidelines g. Page 24 – any concerns about the proposed modification in relation to programmatic adjustments and baskets? h. Page 26 – Consider Board input and decide whether updates should be made to this section. i. Page 27/28 – any concerns in relation to the updates made to change OEC to ‘through a committee if appropriate’ following Board input? j. Page 28 – consider Board input on topic of compensation and decide whether any updates should be made to this paragraph. k. Page 39 – any concerns in relation to the proposed modification to point 5 in line with the Board’s input? l. Any other issues? 5. Confirm next steps: a.Launch of survey – yes/no, timing? b. Launch of public comment period – timing? c. ICANN66 session – proposed approach d. Confirm action items / immediate next steps e. AOB
Marika: Conversation needed regarding the timing of the next steps. Survey for instance on whether to recommend one mechanism, or multiple? To be included in the final report that will go out for public comment. Wednesday: we could have a meeting next week. Or we continue the conversation in Montreal, which will further push out the publication date for public comment. Erika suggests to continue the discussion in Montreal. Edits to be made as much as possible, based on conversation today.
Action item #4: everyone to review the latest version and flag any other issues / concerns prior to the session at ICANN66.
Next meeting: ICANN66| Wed, 6 November | 17:00-18:30 https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116834 [66.schedule.icann.org] |
