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

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

I have read the document and looks quite clear

I support both leadership recs

yes I am ok

+1 on Leadership recommendation.

judith suggestions are quite good ones

yes Erika, I dont get the Standing committie

Agree with Erika. 20

On both comments

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.

I am on audio only today Im afraid

+1 to Carolina

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

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

+1 Danko

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

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

+Sylvia, it’s all about prior due diligence

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

This sounds like a creative way to address the issue

Agree with Alan I do share the same concern

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

Sorry about the term used. I meant an external group

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

+ 1 Maureen

I do not want it to be the same group

Agree with Alan

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

language is not needed.

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

none from me either

No further comment

fine

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

it was Sebastien talking …

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Sam

Agree with Alans concerns about the EC

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

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

+1 Sylvia

hand up from Alan

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

+1 Carolina :)

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

+1 Carolina

agree with leadership. language need to be clarified

believe that was the intention Carolina

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

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.

That clarification will be very welcome Sam.

"I see nothing" = "In the Bylaws"

+ 1 Alan and Sylvia

+1 SAM

+1 Sam

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

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

+1 Carolina and Sylvia

The conflict of interest point is an important one too

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

Involving the EC would make things even more complicated!

Good to. know that perspective of CoI is useful to word the response

+1 Sylvia

@Emily - please continue to share our discussion!

sally coaterton

Costerton

Anne, if that was the spirit, I think that was not sufficiently clear from the comment

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

Can Staff reach out to BC on this for a final clarification?

I assume it is ptretty clear

I agree they should not be considered

+1 Judith

Agree

+1 Judith

I agree with the leadership recommendation

language on prudent approach sounds good.

+1 Maureen

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

+1 Carolina

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

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

+1 alan

Agree with Alan

I am with ALAN too

Let's not revisit...

I agree with Alan. I did to think it was clear.

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

It states legal and fiduciary requirements, but maybe some further clarification is needed

I agree with Alan

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.

+1 Alan.

I’m back!

Yeah!

totally agree with you Erika.

+1 Erika. That is how we do it as well

+1 to that language proposed

I am fine with the answers to recommendation 7

agree with the leadership recommendation on that. we all agree before

I support the leadership rec on language for recommendation 7

I like the leadership

the leaderships recommendation of workding

+1 Erika,

Alan has a hand up

+1

yes

simplicity of language too

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

I am OK with the updated language

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

We will look at this language in full context and in consideration of this conversation

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

We are 2 minutes before end.

ok for the timeline

sounds good

timeline ok

many thanks, great work!

thank you alll

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

Thank you Emily

Thank you everyone; Thank you Joke, Emily, and Erika

thanks all