Good day all.

Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC

Nothing urgent, Erika

Unfortunately, no scrolling in zoom

Please note on this item, staff will double check to make sure that the language included that is derived from the Board input is verbatim.

I am ok with this text

page 12 is part of a section that covers the Board’s input, it is not part of the CCWG’s responses to the charter questions or recommendations (which uses the ‘consistent with’ language)

I am ok with this too

Im good with including the quote from the Board

I am okay with this inclusion in this section as it is about the Board’s input.

Ditto

Quote from Board as inclusion seems fine.

Nope

“Consistently with the intended purpose of auction proceeds as stated in the Applicant Guidebook, the general use of the auction proceeds should exclude the funding of any ICANN on-going operational activities. The auction proceeds are funds that result from circumstances that are unpredictable as to their occurrence, repetition, extent and sustainability. As a result, they can not support the management of on-going activities, which require predictable and sustainable funding.”

Proposed text to include on page 22

and *cannot as opposed to can not

With Marilyn’s suggested edit: “Consistent with the intended purpose of auction proceeds as stated in the Applicant Guidebook, the general use of the auction proceeds should exclude the funding of any ICANN Org’s on-going operational activities. The auction proceeds are funds that result from circumstances that are unpredictable as to their occurrence, repetition, extent and sustainability. As a result, they can not support the management of on-going activities, which require predictable and sustainable funding.”

agree with Xavier clarification - the text is ok for me

Excellent example, Erika, as an exceptional update to the Root Servers is clearly consistent with ICANN’s mission. And, of course, ICANN Org, as one RS operator, would need to participate.

the text is ok for me too

yes Chang, that is the importance of mechanism C.

I think it would be very difficult for ICANN to receive Auction Funds under Mechanism A and B. One reason that the CSG has been favoring Mechanism C is to have more independence, and I agree with Ching’s comments.

The new text explains that Org would only access auction funds due to unusual/unpredictable circumstances. Im Ok with the inclusion of this text.

i am in agreement with Ching here

I can speak to this, Erika

I agree with Erika to check if the new text applies to Mechanisms a,b and c

And then turn it over to Xavier

in my point of view mechanism B may be suitable

I saw your comment too late Emily!

No problem, Erika

I am in transit. will listen and comment on transcript. Best I can do today.

Understood Sam L.

agree - make it clearer

@Emily: i will review the text in the draft document to ensure it is clear and complete.

Thank you, Xavier

As I wrote in email, I am concerned it opens another pandora's box of definitions

+1

I am too concerned that it does not sound clear

Dear all I must disconnect for the next 30 mins, will try to reconnect for the end of the session

Thank you, Carolina

@julf raised a very important issue as well. can we try to clarify as much as possible anything pertaining to all the definition on the final draft?

isn't it included in ICANNs mission?

The work going on now is to create a framework for determining - in context - whether the GPI is being served in connection with a specific policy or recommendation

exactly that what I was thinking off @Julf

There is no effort to “define” the GPI in a static way -

Yes, Becky, understood.

I am OK with the proposal, but we will probably face the debate anyway

Public interest is in ICANN's mission already

Maureen +1

Apologies all, I must drop off now.

But the current discussions and the toolkit will hopefully clarify its position within the mission

Taking into account the development of discussions related to developing a public interest framework

The Board’s reply should be coming shortly.

The ICANN org response will follow after that

Hi everyone. Sorry to join so late. MAG meeting just finished.

Sure, Erika. That works well.

I think that the response already touches a bit on the questions that Marilyn just raised

I agree, Sam, it seemed implicit.

Hello All, I am sorry to be late was in another meeting.

Welcome, Mary

welcome, Mary

would be good if we can have a preference after the first survey

Helpful, Marika, to explain that consensus is indeed complex to “detect”. Thanks for that.

seems this practice is been done by other groups

Thanks for that explanation, Marika

yeah thanks for the explanation Marika

@Marika - can we all access an updated version of the report for discussion with our groups

+1 Maureen. I need a URL for the ccNSO so they can go look at it if they wish.

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/115641432/new%20gTLD%20AP%20CCWG%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20-%20updated%2017%20September%202019_clean.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1568749041000&api=v2

This is the version circulated with the agenda for this call

There are still some updates to be made, but we will share the ‘final’ version together with the launch of the survey

Willing to wait until we have a "final" report.

I think we have a moral responsibility to submit this back to the Community for comment.

@Marika.. happy to wait for the version with the updated text

I too would like At-Large to see what we are looking at as a final report

Isn’t the question of a second public comment period up to the CCWG-AP to recommend?

@Marilyn - correct

yeah Samantha. thanks to make it clear

Good point Samantha. Can we basically "lock down" this report prior to submitting it to the Board to avoid the endless cycle?

s/to the Board/to the Community/

yes in agreement for public comments on the redline text

Yes, please. Really important Erika

Xavier!!!

Bye everyone

Bye all!

Thank you Erika

thank you so much. bye

thanks to you alll