Content Comparison

Notes/ Action Items

1.            Roll call

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

2.            Welcome / DOI

3.            Recap CCWG approach for dealing with the charter questions, role of surveys and consensus calls

• Lively exchanges on the list and questions in relation to the role of surveys and consensus calls
• Staff trying to do its best to capture all the comments and input from calls and mailing list. Important for all to review and comment.
• Surveys are intended to help inform deliberations and frame the discussions. Surveys are not consensus calls.
• Mind maps are a translation of that input - help to identify what may be missing.
• Leadership team discusses / reviews topics for surveys - way to obtain quick input to help inform discussions.
• One page summaries on some key topics have been prepared which aim to capture the essence of the discussions to assist in moving forward the discussion and having all input in one place.
• Leadership team is doing its best to keep track of earlier suggestions - but feel free to remind the CCWG of suggestions / ideas.
• Many tracks / topics are currently open for discussion which makes it challenging for some to keep up.
• CCWG reminded to review section 5 - rules of engagement of the charter which outlines decision making process (see https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/xokPBg). Formal consensus call is conducted at the end of the process, but preliminary agreements may already been achieved at earlier stages of the process. Ideally full consensus is found, but charter also foresees option of minority positions.

Action item #1: CCWG to review section 5 of the Charter on decision-making methodology (see https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/xokPBg).

4.            Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/)

• Is there any input from new gTLD SubPro whether the auction mechanism may be used in the future? May not be likely as most desirable names have already been applied for, private auctions may take precedent and application fees may get adjusted noting experience from this round. Note there is also still substantial funding remaining in the ligitation fund. Would others be inclined to provide funding to the mechanism is created?  Also depends on amount of funding that is spent per project as it may also influence the spending rate.
• CCWG should not assume that more money is coming in - could be an option, but assumption is that funding is limited to what has been generated by new gTLD auction proceeds. As such, focus should be on funds that are currently available.
• Permanent endowment could be considered incompatible with ICANN's charter and mission - have nothing to do with giving money away. Is a distraction from what ICANN's is supposed to be doing.
• Consider adding this question to the list of questions for external experts - get an understanding of how they deal with this topic factoring in the amount of funds involved.
• Possible preliminary WG agreement: The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital). No objections expressed on the call for this preliminary WG agreement.

Action item #2: CCWG members & participants, especially those that were not on the call, to indicate on the mailing list if they have any objections to the following preliminary WG agreement:

Apologies:

ICANN staff:

The CCWG's focus is on the funds that are currently available without any assumption that additional funds will become available. The CCWG will focus on developing recommendations that will enable the disbursement of the funds in an effective and judicious manner without creating a perpetual mechanism (i.e. not being focused on preservation of capital).

5.            Review responses to survey related to charter question #10, Should ICANN the organization be permitted to apply for auction proceeds funds

• See responses to survey circulated (https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-K3MK9MY5/).
• Majority of respondents to the survey do not support allowing ICANN the organization to be permitted to apply for funds to replenish the ICANN reserve fund.
• Would it be good for ICANN Org / Board to articulate why reserve fund is in current situation and what plans it has to replenish the reserve fund which may further assist in informing the CCWG deliberations in this regard?
• Potential issues would need to be addressed on how to oversee / police allocation to reserve fund.
• Is a potential new "Auction fund foundation" with a 501(c) status even allowed to donate to an Icann reserve fund? Doesn't sound like a 'charity'-donation. Funds could be allocated prior to creation of fund/foundation?
• CCWG is only discussing whether we honour the request from the Board to allocate some of the funds to the reserve. CCWG can decide if we do and how much. The existance of the reserve and the target level is out of scope for the CCWG.
• Regarding the ICANN Reserve Fund: ICANN has a reserve fund in place, set up in 2007. It is governed by the Investment Policy, approved by the Board. This policy says that the level of the Reserve Fund should be at least of 12 months of Operating Expenses, which is currently of approximately $140m. The Reserve Fund balance is currently of approximately $60m, after about $30m were taken to cover for the costs of the IANA Stewardship transition (CWG, CCWG, implementaion costs,...).
• Park issue for now and await input from ICANN Org/Board and then determine whether this has changed opinions and/or a new survey should be conducted. This should happen at the latest by ICANN60.

Action item #3: ICANN Org/Board to provide further information to the CCWG on current situation of reserve fund, plans for replenishment and how auction proceeds could potentially factor in to that plan to help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. If possible, this information is provided in time for the next CCWG meeting.

Action item #4: Staff to document all surveys & results on wiki

6.            Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached)

a.            Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives

Deferred to next meeting

b.            Review and discuss input received on definition of ‘open internet’

Deferred to next meeting

Action item #5: Staff to update the overview documents for objectives and open internet with input provided since circulation and put out to the list for further and input and discussion prior to the next meeting.

c.             Review examples

Deferred to next meeting

7.            ICANN60 meeting planning – update

• CCWG will keep original slots (Thursday from 10.30 – 12.00 and 13.30 – 15.00) but may convert one of them into more of an internal type meeting depending on attendance.

8.            Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 7 September at 14.00 UTC)