Content Comparison

Notes/ Action Items

These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw .

1. Roll Call

Attendance will be taken from AC

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

1. Short introduction to Zoom

Provided by Andrea Glandon

     3. Update on the status of outstanding action items:

1. FAQs

Staff is working on 2 stand-alone documents: one captures the input received to date from the ICANN Board. Second one relates to the legal and fiduciary requirements.

Will be shared with the CCWG shortly.

                 b. Comment #4 (charter question #2) - Marilyn, Elliot, Jonathan, Alan and Maureen to develop draft language for inclusion

• small team action item coming out of Kobe was to review the example list as well as guidelines and consider whether additional language should be added to reflect this notion that “Evaluators may need to differentiate between what it is in the regular operational budget and what has been funded on a more exceptional basis, but this will be a determination that needs to be made by the evaluators in line with the legal and fiduciary requirements” which are also referenced in the Board input.
• Small team met in the meanwhile, and the proposed language  will be circulated with the rest of the group shortly.
• Jonathan: action item coming out of Kobe, to look at those 2 topics. Recording available, meeting lasted 30 min. Additional wording was added. Jonathan posted the current draft of the additional text in the chat, upon request of the chair.

               c. Reminder: CCWG to regularly review overview of CCWG agreements to date and latest versions of templates

(see https://community.icann.org/x/zYMWBg)

       4. Continue review of comments:

See templates published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Initial+Report+Public+Comment+Review

             a. Charter question #8 input

Q8 | comment #2

• No recommendation for a precise percentage. Overhead will vary as well, depending on the size of the project
• Original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead. Chair prefers this. No objections raised by the CCWG
• Xavier: Group may want to consider explaining why in the response of addressing the comment, the group thinks not specifying the ceiling is a good approach. While a ceiling is not offered, the group has expressed the recommendation of minimising costs to the extent possible.   The mechanisms could lead to different level of costs.

Action item #1:

Q8 | comment #2

• Stick to the original recommendation: do not include a precise ceiling for the overhead.
• Stress that the group recommends to minimise costs, to the extent possible.

           b. Charter question #9 input

Q9 | comment #1

To be included in the original recommendation, instead of including it in the guidelines. What does the group think?

Action item #2:

Q9 | Comment #1

• Staff to send the text of the original recommendation to the group.
• Leadership team will verify how to address the Board recommendations

Follow-up by staff on action item #2:

See page 24 and 25 of the initial report. (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93128721/new%20gTLD%20Auction%20Proceeds%20CCWG%20Initial%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20-%20upd%208%20October%202018.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1538991180000&api=v2 )

Q9 | comment #2

• Elliot: The comment echoes “motherhood comments”. Rather than addressing them individually, could we have a blanket statement about oversight. All those comments are similar.
• Erika: Do we want to make a single recommendation regarding good governance?  Agrees with Elliot’s suggestion. Options: recommendation, or in the guidelines?

Action item #3:

Q9 | Comment #2

A small drafting team (consisting of Erika and Elliot) will review the original recommendations and guidelines, and all comments that related to good governance  principles received during the public comment period. Explore the option to draft one single text for the governance recommendations. Proposal to be presented to the group.

Q9 | comment #3

• Understanding that the auction proceeds would be separated from the original audit ICANN is doing. Funds would need to be audited once in a year. Separate audit for each individual project.
• Xavier: Regulatory requirements pertaining to status of icann as a non-profit organisation. Audit can also mean “re-verifying something”. Annual independent requirement in the US: that audit is not applying to the auction proceeds. Those audits apply to a legal entity, and to all actions by that legal entity.   Auction proceeds are not subject to a separate independent audit, but they are audited as part of the annual independent audit by the independent auditors of ICANN, and PTI.
• Separate from the independent annual audit: disbursement.
• Erika: independent auditors will continue to audit the auction proceeds as part of the audit they do for ICANN.  Once we have decided about the mechanism (part of icann, separate entity, foundation ….) we would need to describe a separate audit process.  Further discussion to be postponed until a mechanism has been selected?
• Maarten: Board is happy to assist.
• Erika asked Xavier for input about the ideal scenario

Action item #4:

Q9 | comment #3

Postpone the discussion for now. To be addressed once a mechanism has been selected

Q9 | comment #4

Action item #5:

Q9 | comment #4

To be addressed by the small drafting team: explore the option to bring all governance-related good practices into 1 single recommendation. (see action item #3)

            c. Charter question #10 input

Q10 | comment #1

• Sam is not on today’s call. Erika asks whether we should postpone this, until Sam is available?
• Xavier suggests to continue the conversation, and to bring possible questions to Sam’s attention after this meeting. Vanda prefers to have legal input
• Carolina: it would be useful to have context about what the current situation is for these bodies. Will help to give a sense to the group, on allocating funds to the SO/ACs or not.
• Erika: do not re-discuss things that were previously discussed.  Topic needs to be approached carefully. What is legally possible? What is within the icann bylaws?
• Maarten: There has been Board advice concerning this topic.
• Correspondence records, see: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Correspondence
• Erika: Topic is phrased in a broader way

Action item #6:

Q10 | Comment #1

With regard to points raised in public comments that go beyond what was covered in existing advice from ICANN legal and board

• Postpone the discussion until further legal input is available.
• Board input to be reviewed by the leadership team.
• Staff to verify with Samantha Eisner whether there are any additional points to be raised, regarding the original input provided by the Board.

Q10 | comment #2

whether constituents parts of SO/AC that have individual legal rights can take part in future AP funding processes. Chair believes this topic was already answered by Sam/Board but we need to clarify with BC if this is what they meant.

Action item #7:

Q10 | comment #2

BC to provide additional clarification, regarding “SO/ACs that are not directly affiliated with ICANN”

Q10 | comment #3

• Erika: Take this off the agenda. Made clear by the board that they are overseeing the budget, if they need access to this amount, that is a possibility. Up to SO/AC to discuss
• Maarten: If this would happen, this would be a Decision that is subject to Empowered Community consideration (like all Board decisions) so the Board would be careful in doing so

Action item #8:

Q10 | comment #3

CCWG will not change its original recommendation

Q10 | comment #4

SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can. This point needs to be clarified

Action item #9:

Q10 | comment #4

Leadership team to review the advice received to date. Further clarify that SO/AC can’t apply but under certain conditions, their constituent parts can.

Q10 | comment #5

Action item #10:

Q10 | comment #5:

CCWG will not change its original recommendation

Q10 | comment #7

• Leadership recommendation is not responding to the original point. It is addressing the previous topic.
• Goes to same basket as first point.

Action item #11:

Q10 | comment #7:

CCWG to first take a decision on the mechanism, and then further discuss this topic.

Judith: ALSes are separate entities. Members of SOs/ACs or Cs have to be treated differently than the SOs/ACs

Erika: SO/AC will not be able to apply for the funds. Constituents that are legal entities would be able. But: this needs to be verified by the leadership team. To be cross-referenced with the comments received on this topic and the input provided by ICANN Org and the Board.

Q10 | comment #8

Action item #12:

Q10 | comment #8

Staff to review work plan and to determine when would be best to address the response to the 5 October 2018 Board letter.

Q10 | comment #9 & #10

To be taken off the agenda. Similar to topic previously discussed.

Action item #13:

Q10 | Comment #9 & #10

CCWG will not change its original recommendation

5. Confirm next steps and next meeting: Wednesday 8 May at 14.00 UTC.