2017-07-13 CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call

Notes/ Action Items

1.            Roll Call

• Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect
• Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and remember to mute your microphone when not speaking

2.            Welcome / DOI

• Productive meeting held at ICANN59 - those not able to participate are encouraged to review the transcript and recording.
• Everyone is encouraged to participate in surveys and other requests for input as it will be imperative to be able to meet the timeline as set out in the work plan

3.            Review of survey results charter question #4 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4[surveymonkey.com])

• To date, 15 responses have been received.
• Currently views on question #1 re. timeframe for allocation of funds are equally split between one-off exercise and long lasting mechanism through possible investment.
• What return on investment could be obtained - that may determine what timeframe you would be looking at? How much money per year, if the CCWG would want to pursue this approach? This could be a potential question for external experts? Board may also have input on this question based on experience to date. Funds are currently invested with a view of preservation so return is currently pretty small as investments are low risk.
• In relation to the duration of projects to be supported, current responses indicate that there is no specific preference for short time or long term projects. Will at some point also need to consider cost of overhead of short term vs. long term projects. Should provide some further info on what is considered short term vs. long term. Short term could be 1 year or less, medium term up to 3 years, long term 5 years and up.
• Note that the different questions are interlinked. How money is allocated is linked to the magnitude of projects funded, duration, etc. Decisions on one will likely impact others.
• Please consider that CCWG does not have to select one single mechanism. There can be one for short term / smaller amounts and other for long term / large disbursements.
• Leadership team to review results and consider how to move forward if there is no clear preference on some of these questions.

Action item #1: Staff to reach out Xavier to obtain further input regarding current investment and return.

Action item #2: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #4 by 20 July.

4.            Review of survey results charter question #7 (please complete the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7[surveymonkey.com])

• Difficult to answer without some further details - what would it entail for ICANN to do this? Would it be a question of 3 people or 20? Those details may determine whether it would be feasible and/or desirable to have ICANN manage this. May also be a question for external experts although some specificity would need to be provided to be able to provide a response.
• One off - within ICANN, longer term - external to ICANN? May be dependent on the answer to that question. Setting up a foundation was not excluded when reviewing the AGB.
• With regards to community volunteer involvement, need to consider not creating additional bureaucracy, costs as well as factor in possible conflicts of interest.

Action item #3: CCWG members and participants that have not responded to the survey yet are encouraged to complete the survey for charter question #7 by 20 July.

5.            Review feedback received on charter question #2 survey & next steps (see attached documents)

• No further feedback received on the mailing list. A number of updates made based on discussions during ICANN59 as well as one additional response received.
• CCWG to determine how to move from this list to preliminary agreement on what the (preliminary) agreed objective for fund allocation should be.
• Criteria must be implementable and consistent with ICANN's mission. Consider a possible check-list to see which of the criteria are most consistent with ICANN's mission.
• Objectives and criteria are quite different. criteria refers normally (with grants management) to eligibility, forms to fill, licensing, use, copyright, etc. that is a very practical and operational. Objectives are very important as that help applicants to decide if they want to apply or not.
• SDGs is a good framework to consider. To broaden the desired impact without broadening the mission (as ICANN's mission is narrow and might change again in the future).
• Need to ask not only whether something is within ICANN"s mission, but also rationale.
• Following determination / agreement on overall objective(s), CCWG could go back to concrete examples and stress test those against the mission.

Action item #4: Staff to work with leadership team to develop survey that would assess support for different objectives as well as assessment of whether it falls within ICANN's mission and why. Share survey for preview with CCWG prior to launch.

6.            Questions for external experts – reminder (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit)[docs.google.com]

• CCWG may need to identify at which stage of the process external input will be most helpful. May require further details on scope/objective for it to be a helpful conversation. Maybe focus first on scope/objective related questions to help inform the current stage of deliberations.
• May need one-pager to explain status of work so external experts have an understanding of the work of the CCWG, especially with regards to scope. That may also help identify umbrella questions.

Action item #4: CCWG encouraged to add questions for external experts to the google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit[docs.google.com]   

7.            Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 27 July at 14.00 UTC)