2017-04-27 CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call

There will be a CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call that will be held on Thursday 27 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, 17:00 Istanbul, 22:00 Singapore, 00:00 Melbourne

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ljmmgwb

PROPOSED AGENDA: 

1.  Start of meeting – roll call

2.  Welcome & updates to DOIs

3.  Response to ICANN Board letter 

4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan

5.  Initial run through of charter question 5 

6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows

7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC

AC Recording

Mp3

Attendance

Transcription

AC Chat

Joining late: Manal Ismail

Apologies: Sylvia Cadena, Marc Gauw, Seun Ojedeji, John Levine, Daniel Dardailler, Judith Hellerstein, Alberto Soto 

Dial outs: Marika Konings 

Notes from the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting:

1. Start of meeting – roll call

·         Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect

·         Reminder, please state name for transcription purposes and keep your microphones on mute when not speaking

2. Welcome & updates to DOIs

·         Aim to keep call to 60 minutes if possible

·         Reminder, please share any updates to your DOI

3. Response to ICANN Board letter

·         Numerous comments received on the mailing list, especially with regards to % to be spent on overhead

·         Need to be careful with concrete numbers as it is not clear yet what mechanism would be chosen and what the implications would be with regards to overhead.

·         Proposed modification: Several CCWG members/participants did point out, however, that the overhead costs will depend on the actual mechanism recommended [as a result of the CCWG deliberations] and may therefore vary from the 5% recommended by the ICANN Board.

·         Board does have understanding that % may vary - critical message is that impact of choices on costs should be factored in so that bulk is not spent on administration/overhead.

Action item #1: Staff to circulate letter with updated language for CCWG final review (1 week review time)

Action item #2: CCWG Leadership to submit letter to ICANN Board following CCWG final review

4. Review of updates approach for dealing with charter questions and associated work plan

·         See updated approach and work plan circulated

·         CCWG requested to review these documents and provide input on both steps as well as timing

·         Timeline for delivery of Initial Report is an artificial deadline - up to CCWG to decide if/when to adjust based on progress made.

Action item #3: Staff to circulate documents (updated graphic and updated work plan)

Action item #4: CCWG to review updated approach for dealing with charter questions and updated work plan

5.  Initial run through of charter question 5

·         See template for charter question 5 circulated

·         Further details may be needed on the selection committees mentioned - may be worth reviewing other responses from same person as it may be further detailed in response to other questions.

·         Important to determine order in which questions are to be dealt with

6. Initial run through of charter question 7, if time allows

·         See template for charter question 7 circulated

·         Confusion over the use of ICANN - ICANN staff, ICANN community? Most of the ccTLDs use community volunteers. Should be contemplated. One of the possible outcomes is volunteers from the ICANN community - add this to the template.

·         Adherence to mission will likely have two implications: will limit # of proposals that would get through first gate, would preclude outside group.

·         If you use volunteers, there may be an issue of consistency. # of applications is not clear yet, may depend on criteria that are set (e.g. minimum / max. amount to be funded).

·         Outsourcing or inhouse - may need further consideration once it is clear what the focus / objective of fund allocation will be.

·         Need to look into the creation of a foundation where principal funds are not spent and, instead, invested. The growth is then distributed.  This is a unique opportunity for this community and it should maximized for posterity and for the good of the Internet.

·         Consider deleting first response as question may not have been clear to person that responded.

Action item #5: Staff to update template with input provided during this meeting and circulate it to CCWG for review & input

7. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 11 May at 14.00 UTC

·         Review charter question 7 again in order to determine whether there is a certain hierarchy.