
22:57
Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC

24:36
You can download the document currently on display here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126425480/Public%20Comment%20Question%20%231%20Review%20Template%20upd%204%20Mar%202020.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1583329202691&api=v2

27:08
I have read the document and looks quite clear

29:32
I support both leadership recs

29:48
yes I am ok

29:49
+1 on Leadership recommendation.

31:44
judith suggestions are quite good ones

32:40
yes Erika, I dont get the Standing committie

33:07
Agree with Erika. 20

33:21
On both comments

35:38
I also disagree with establishing the limit/threshold on how much projects can request. As part of the evaluation process, it will be evaluated whether a project is proposing a budget that makes sense. I would not adopt this rec.

35:53
I am on audio only today Im afraid

36:00
+1 to Carolina

36:13
If we create an independent evaluation panel, we probably should trust it

36:21
no need to discuss this - I am more focus on the quality of projects not the quantity of project

36:36
+1 Danko

38:08
Proper due diligence reduces the risk if there is a project worthy of a larger budget.

38:16
i also understand the rationale of Judith and ALAN , but not restrict anything beforehand

38:50
+Sylvia, it’s all about prior due diligence

38:52
Agree with Alan about not setting a specific percentage but we have discussed this before

38:59
This sounds like a creative way to address the issue

40:07
Agree with Alan I do share the same concern

42:12
sorry Yao it was supposed to send to everyone yes judith a good suggestion for the implementation of evaluate group

42:29
Sorry about the term used. I meant an external group

42:37
+1 Erika but we need some clearer explanation about the role and tenure of the external evaluation committee

43:05
+ 1 Maureen

43:06
I do not want it to be the same group

43:14
Agree with Alan

44:09
Judith., I don't understand - you don't want what to be the same group?

44:16
language is not needed.

44:53
I do have the concern about the standing community. what will be their role? how will this work?

47:11
none from me either

47:13
No further comment

47:30
fine

47:53
If the evaluation group has no time line on how long they are in existence than yes I think it should be a separate group

51:12
it was Sebastien talking …

52:08
Yes, he was on both calls and had toggled off the wrong mute button I suppose

52:26
Agree with the actions recommended by the leadership. I believe the feasibility study should be done as part of the implementation stage and on a very quick timeframe

54:39
yes I support the leadership on the feasibility study. but I think we should define a timeframe that don't exceed a month.

55:38
Agree with Alan. The integrity of the selection process according to the guidelines

55:50
I concur with Alan’s statement on the EC. I will follow up with a response to the Leadership questions

56:17
Thank you, Sam

57:17
Agree with Alans concerns about the EC

57:27
To avoid this type of confusion it may be useful to have a diagram that explains the process, the different groups, etc

57:45
EC has nothing to do with this… guess it was not full understood by BC

57:46
+1 Sylvia

58:10
hand up from Alan

59:17
I agree with Alan, I think they just mean a study of costs of each mechanism

01:00:04
+1 Carolina :)

01:00:05
Agree with the actions recommended by the leadership. I believe the feasibility study should be done as part of the implementation stage and on a very quick timeframe

01:00:27
+1 Carolina

01:00:58
agree with leadership. language need to be clarified

01:01:02
believe that was the intention Carolina

01:01:40
I agree with Alan on the EC confusion. Agree with Alan. The integrity of the selection process according to the guidelines is absolutely key

01:02:34
Other than the Budgetary Component that Alan mentioned, I see nothing that would permit the EC (esp. the ECA) to fiddle with the grant process.

01:02:36
That clarification will be very welcome Sam.

01:02:59
"I see nothing" = "In the Bylaws"

01:03:01
+ 1 Alan and Sylvia

01:03:13
+1 SAM

01:03:25
+1 Sam

01:07:34
I think Sylvia’s earlier idea of incorporating a diagram will be useful to provide clarity to the community about the overall evaluation process

01:07:41
@Carolina, that is a really important point. Thanks for raising it from that perspective

01:08:01
+1 Carolina and Sylvia

01:08:38
The conflict of interest point is an important one too

01:09:01
Are we talking about the EC's ability to challenge things grant-related under Annex D Article 4?

01:09:49
Involving the EC would make things even more complicated!

01:10:11
Good to. know that perspective of CoI is useful to word the response

01:11:40
+1 Sylvia

01:13:05
@Emily - please continue to share our discussion!

01:16:20
sally coaterton

01:16:26
Costerton

01:16:30
Anne, if that was the spirit, I think that was not sufficiently clear from the comment

01:17:39
I support leadership’s rec to ask the BC for clarification on this point, so that we can move on now

01:17:42
Can Staff reach out to BC on this for a final clarification?

01:22:42
I assume it is ptretty clear

01:23:40
I agree they should not be considered

01:24:04
+1 Judith

01:24:18
Agree

01:24:30
+1 Judith

01:26:50
I agree with the leadership recommendation

01:27:04
language on prudent approach sounds good.

01:27:06
+1 Maureen

01:27:56
While I agree with sylvia’s estimated max overhead, I think this was a complicated debate which we should not revisit

01:28:08
+1 Carolina

01:29:10
I understand that. I was not able to participate in that portion of the debate but it was important to me to

01:30:11
make the comment as that will be part of the implementation review process. I am ok with the leadership response to use the word prudent when referring to overhead limits

01:30:20
+1 alan

01:30:38
Agree with Alan

01:31:16
I am with ALAN too

01:31:17
Let's not revisit...

01:32:03
I agree with Alan. I did to think it was clear.

01:33:57
I think the recommendation is quite clear with regards to the qualification and conditions required for a beneficiary

01:35:05
It states legal and fiduciary requirements, but maybe some further clarification is needed

01:35:14
I agree with Alan

01:35:19
I believe that on the issues the CCWG does not reach consensus, the implementation team/process will have to have to do comprehensive review and put language together. I think the text was clear that there was no prohibition.

01:35:27
+1 Alan.

01:36:05
I’m back!

01:36:18
Yeah!

01:38:09
totally agree with you Erika.

01:38:18
+1 Erika. That is how we do it as well

01:41:12
+1 to that language proposed

01:41:19
I am fine with the answers to recommendation 7

01:41:27
agree with the leadership recommendation on that. we all agree before

01:41:29
I support the leadership rec on language for recommendation 7

01:42:52
I like the leadership

01:43:07
the leaderships recommendation of workding

01:43:08
+1 Erika,

01:43:18
Alan has a hand up

01:44:50
+1

01:44:54
yes

01:46:04
simplicity of language too

01:46:09
I do not see that we can intwine grant applications with the Review mechanisms present in Annex D of the Bylaws.

01:46:35
I am OK with the updated language

01:46:46
I think it will be important to flag in the CCWG’s recommendation that the Bylaws need to be changed to reflect that the IRP/Reconsideration is not to be used in this regard

01:47:04
We will look at this language in full context and in consideration of this conversation

01:48:28
Sam, what specific article will need tweaking, or are you suggesting a new one?

01:48:40
We are 2 minutes before end.

01:49:35
ok for the timeline

01:50:16
sounds good

01:50:22
timeline ok

01:50:29
many thanks, great work!

01:50:42
thank you alll

01:50:48
ok with the timeline. Hope my comment about incorporating a diagram to explain the process on the final report can be done and use one of thise meetings to reviyot for clarity

01:50:49
Thank you Emily

01:50:52
Thank you everyone; Thank you Joke, Emily, and Erika

01:50:52
thanks all