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 room
• Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and mute your microphones when not speaking

2. Welcome / DOI

• Note that letter from the Board is on the agenda for today's meeting - it already drew some discussion on the list, also from the perspective of DOI.

3. Review redrafted objectives and examples

i.   Review and discuss input received concerning redrafted objectives

• Note latest draft that has been circulated. Is this now at a stage where people feel comfortable to preliminary agreeing to this version, noting that there are still some open items that need to be addressed and may impact the final wording.
• Third item could be merged into first one so it would read 'Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems'. Agreement to update this bullet accordingly. Some wordsmithing may need to be done later, but intent is clear.
• Preliminary agreement by those on the call on the following proposed objectives:
• Specific objectives of new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation are:
• Benefit the development, distribution, evolution and structures/projects that support the Internet's unique identifier systems;
• Benefit capacity building and underserved populations, and;
• Benefit the Open Internet. [Note, the definition of Open Internet is subject to a separate conversation]

New gTLD Auction Proceeds are expected to be allocated in a manner consistent with ICANN’s mission.

ICANN staff:

Action item #1: CCWG to review proposed objectives for new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund allocation that achieved preliminary agreement by those on the call (see above). If there are any concerns or objections, members/participants are encouraged to share these with the mailing list as soon as possible.

Action item #2: Staff to create list of preliminary agreements to which this agreement and previous one will be added.

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

• See latest draft circulated on mailing list just prior to this meeting which aims to bring together the different versions and comments that have been received to date.
• Is 'Open Internet' too identified with Net Neutrality? Consider a possible alternative wording such as Open and Interoperable Internet or open interoperable Internet. Not create an impression that this group is trying to define a term which is already being used in other contexts. Also make clear that it concerns a network of networks. Not about defining Open Internet but how fund allocation might fit into the broader scope of Open Internet. But some may just ignore this nuance so need to consider whether to use different terminology.
• Some concerns expressed about some of the bullet points - CCWG to consider whether all of these belong here. Also consider making the statements more high level and moving some of the examples to a different section / annex. Providing examples may also trigger proposals that are focused on those specific examples so may not be advisable. Examples may be helpful for evaluators though - could consider not publishing the examples with call for proposals but as guidance for evaluators or as part of an FAQ for possible applicants? This discussion may be premature as materials for applicants and/or evaluators are for a later stage. Focus on examples here is to ensure that there is a common understanding on what the focus and objectives of fund allocation is.
• While this group is focused on gTLDs, it should be recognized that ccTLDs are very important contributors to increasing access. Perhaps this could become a neutral statement about the importance of an online presence and providing information about all kinds of TLDs?
• Even though infrastructure is related to ICANN's mission it is not part of ICANN's mission so it is not clear that auction proceeds could be used appropriately on infrastructure. As such, it may not be appropriate to include reference to items that are not considered within scope of ICANN's mission. The funds shouldn't go to technology that are completely independent of ICANN, such as 5G, wifi, dsl, etc., since this funding could be used against ICANN in the end, to create e.g. another logical addressing system, names and numbers. Need to look further into the question of whether infrastructure is considered consistent with ICANN's mission or not.
• If the auction-funds are awarded in one-time portion(s), and awards may face the risk to be perceived to have a 'wider scope' than strictly 'Icanns mission', then in Holland you can ask the tax-authorities for an 'upfront tax-ruling'.... I guess it is the same in the USA.? There are some proactive processes available through the IRS though they may not be binding opinions. It is not just about the IRS but there is also the broader ICANN community. If there is not agreement amongst the Board and/or community whether something is within ICANN's mission, it could result in an accusation of violation of the Bylaws so there would need to be agreement amongst community and Board about what is within ICANN's mission. Risk of expanding mission statement through work of this group which may not be welcomed by all.
• There is no change in ICANN responsibility to assure adherence to mission regardless of who manages the distribution of the funds

Action item #3: Staff to circulate google doc link to the mailing list. (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HV3dzTkKIYCyiRbzPW3Uk3MctwK0BQTth39DitIW-L4/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com])

Action item #4: CCWG to review Open Internet Definition as available on the google doc link and suggest updates/changes for CCWG consideration

Action item #5: Sam Einsner to review language and provide feedback on whether there are any concerns from an ICANN Org perspective

   iii. Review examples

• Add examples that were circulated to the list by Tony.

Action item #6: Staff to create google doc with all examples received to date and invite CCWG to comment on how each of those examples is consistent with the proposed objectives as well as ICANN's mission.

4. Review response received from the ICANN Board and possible next steps

• See Board response received on 1 September.
• Now for CCWG to consider response, if any, to the letter as well as how feedback is expected to be addressed as part of the deliberations.
• Re. DOI - importance of being open and transparent in all parts of the deliberations. May require further statement / clarification.
• Main issue for Board is concern about perception. CCWG needs to be transparent about any/all decisions. CCWG to consider to clearly state if they have a certain interest in the outcome when stating certain positions (for example, if you or your organisation is interested/planning to apply for funding to support infrastructure projects, make sure to make that clear when advocating to add infrastructure as an objective).
• May be helpful to have a standard / regular legal briefing on COI and what constitutes a COI?
• Transparency on discussions help identify conflict of interests. Once a conflict of interest is identified, the CCWG needs to have a mechanism to enable its conclusions and recommendations to be free of the content that resulted from the conflict. Transparency is not sufficient, it only allows to take the next step when it is needed. This is part of the rationale of the recommendation that the Board made to this working group to establish a mechanism to deal with identified conflict of interest.
• Consider further during next meeting.

Action item #7: CCWG to review their respective SOI/DOIs and make sure that these are up to date.

5. Update on status of input from ICANN Finance & Legal on the different options that have been discussed in relation to charter question #7 – should ICANN Org have a role in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals (e.g. through internal structure - new unit, within ICANN; externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work; externally - working with already existing entities)

• Xavier and Sam are working on a presentation which would outline the different options (internal / external).

6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 21 September at 14.00 UTC).