Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
22:57
Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
Emily Barabas
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
vandascartezini
27:08
I have read the document and looks quite clear
Carolina Caeiro
29:32
I support both leadership recs
vandascartezini
29:48
yes I am ok
Stephen Deerhake
29:49
+1 on Leadership recommendation.
vandascartezini
31:44
judith suggestions are quite good ones
Danko Jevtovic
32:40
yes Erika, I dont get the Standing committie
Sylvia Cadena
33:07
Agree with Erika. 20
Sylvia Cadena
33:21
On both comments
Carolina Caeiro
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.
Carolina Caeiro
35:53
I am on audio only today Im afraid
Sylvia Cadena
36:00
+1 to Carolina
Danko Jevtovic
36:13
If we create an independent evaluation panel, we probably should trust it
vandascartezini
36:21
no need to discuss this - I am more focus on the quality of projects not the quantity of project
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
36:36
+1 Danko
Sylvia Cadena
38:08
Proper due diligence reduces the risk if there is a project worthy of a larger budget.
vandascartezini
38:16
i also understand the rationale of Judith and ALAN , but not restrict anything beforehand
Carolina Caeiro
38:50
+Sylvia, it’s all about prior due diligence
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
38:52
Agree with Alan about not setting a specific percentage but we have discussed this before
Sarah Deutsch
38:59
This sounds like a creative way to address the issue
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
40:07
Agree with Alan I do share the same concern
vandascartezini
42:12
sorry Yao it was supposed to send to everyone yes judith a good suggestion for the implementation of evaluate group
Judith Hellerstein
42:29
Sorry about the term used. I meant an external group
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
42:37
+1 Erika but we need some clearer explanation about the role and tenure of the external evaluation committee
vandascartezini
43:05
+ 1 Maureen
Judith Hellerstein
43:06
I do not want it to be the same group
Sylvia Cadena
43:14
Agree with Alan
Alan Greenberg
44:09
Judith., I don't understand - you don't want what to be the same group?
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
44:16
language is not needed.
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
44:53
I do have the concern about the standing community. what will be their role? how will this work?
vandascartezini
47:11
none from me either
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
47:13
No further comment
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
47:30
fine
Judith Hellerstein
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
vandascartezini
51:12
it was Sebastien talking …
Judith Hellerstein
52:08
Yes, he was on both calls and had toggled off the wrong mute button I suppose
Sylvia Cadena
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
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
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.
Sylvia Cadena
55:38
Agree with Alan. The integrity of the selection process according to the guidelines
Samantha Eisner
55:50
I concur with Alan’s statement on the EC. I will follow up with a response to the Leadership questions
Emily Barabas
56:17
Thank you, Sam
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
57:17
Agree with Alans concerns about the EC
Sylvia Cadena
57:27
To avoid this type of confusion it may be useful to have a diagram that explains the process, the different groups, etc
vandascartezini
57:45
EC has nothing to do with this… guess it was not full understood by BC
Danko Jevtovic
57:46
+1 Sylvia
Emily Barabas
58:10
hand up from Alan
Carolina Caeiro
59:17
I agree with Alan, I think they just mean a study of costs of each mechanism
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:00:04
+1 Carolina :)
Sylvia Cadena
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
Sylvia Cadena
01:00:27
+1 Carolina
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:00:58
agree with leadership. language need to be clarified
vandascartezini
01:01:02
believe that was the intention Carolina
Sylvia Cadena
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
Stephen Deerhake
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.
Sylvia Cadena
01:02:36
That clarification will be very welcome Sam.
Stephen Deerhake
01:02:59
"I see nothing" = "In the Bylaws"
Carolina Caeiro
01:03:01
+ 1 Alan and Sylvia
vandascartezini
01:03:13
+1 SAM
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:03:25
+1 Sam
Carolina Caeiro
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
Samantha Eisner
01:07:41
@Carolina, that is a really important point. Thanks for raising it from that perspective
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:08:01
+1 Carolina and Sylvia
Carolina Caeiro
01:08:38
The conflict of interest point is an important one too
Stephen Deerhake
01:09:01
Are we talking about the EC's ability to challenge things grant-related under Annex D Article 4?
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:09:49
Involving the EC would make things even more complicated!
Sylvia Cadena
01:10:11
Good to. know that perspective of CoI is useful to word the response
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:11:40
+1 Sylvia
Erika Mann
01:13:05
@Emily - please continue to share our discussion!
Sally iPhone 5c
01:16:20
sally coaterton
Sally iPhone 5c
01:16:26
Costerton
Carolina Caeiro
01:16:30
Anne, if that was the spirit, I think that was not sufficiently clear from the comment
Carolina Caeiro
01:17:39
I support leadership’s rec to ask the BC for clarification on this point, so that we can move on now
Stephen Deerhake
01:17:42
Can Staff reach out to BC on this for a final clarification?
Julf Helsingius
01:22:42
I assume it is ptretty clear
Judith Hellerstein
01:23:40
I agree they should not be considered
Sylvia Cadena
01:24:04
+1 Judith
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:24:18
Agree
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:24:30
+1 Judith
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:26:50
I agree with the leadership recommendation
Carolina Caeiro
01:27:04
language on prudent approach sounds good.
Stephen Deerhake
01:27:06
+1 Maureen
Carolina Caeiro
01:27:56
While I agree with sylvia’s estimated max overhead, I think this was a complicated debate which we should not revisit
Judith Hellerstein
01:28:08
+1 Carolina
Sylvia Cadena
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
Sylvia Cadena
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
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:30:20
+1 alan
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:30:38
Agree with Alan
vandascartezini
01:31:16
I am with ALAN too
Julf Helsingius
01:31:17
Let's not revisit...
Judith Hellerstein
01:32:03
I agree with Alan. I did to think it was clear.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:33:57
I think the recommendation is quite clear with regards to the qualification and conditions required for a beneficiary
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:35:05
It states legal and fiduciary requirements, but maybe some further clarification is needed
Carolina Caeiro
01:35:14
I agree with Alan
Sylvia Cadena
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.
Stephen Deerhake
01:35:27
+1 Alan.
Erika Mann
01:36:05
I’m back!
Stephen Deerhake
01:36:18
Yeah!
vandascartezini
01:38:09
totally agree with you Erika.
Sylvia Cadena
01:38:18
+1 Erika. That is how we do it as well
Sylvia Cadena
01:41:12
+1 to that language proposed
Judith Hellerstein
01:41:19
I am fine with the answers to recommendation 7
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:41:27
agree with the leadership recommendation on that. we all agree before
Carolina Caeiro
01:41:29
I support the leadership rec on language for recommendation 7
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:42:52
I like the leadership
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:43:07
the leaderships recommendation of workding
Stephen Deerhake
01:43:08
+1 Erika,
Emily Barabas
01:43:18
Alan has a hand up
Stephen Deerhake
01:44:50
+1
Sylvia Cadena
01:44:54
yes
Sylvia Cadena
01:46:04
simplicity of language too
Stephen Deerhake
01:46:09
I do not see that we can intwine grant applications with the Review mechanisms present in Annex D of the Bylaws.
Carolina Caeiro
01:46:35
I am OK with the updated language
Samantha Eisner
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
Samantha Eisner
01:47:04
We will look at this language in full context and in consideration of this conversation
Stephen Deerhake
01:48:28
Sam, what specific article will need tweaking, or are you suggesting a new one?
Alan Greenberg
01:48:40
We are 2 minutes before end.
vandascartezini
01:49:35
ok for the timeline
Carolina Caeiro
01:50:16
sounds good
Rudi Daniel
01:50:22
timeline ok
Carolina Caeiro
01:50:29
many thanks, great work!
vandascartezini
01:50:42
thank you alll
Sylvia Cadena
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
Nadira Al Araj
01:50:49
Thank you Emily
Stephen Deerhake
01:50:52
Thank you everyone; Thank you Joke, Emily, and Erika
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:50:52
thanks all