Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
25:13
Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:00 UTC.
Vanda's iPhone 5
27:32
hi everyone - sorry this little late was attending ATLAS III Pre meeting -
Judith Hellerstein
28:32
Great!! Hope you are getting a lot done at the ATRT3 in singapore. Loved singapore when I was there
Vanda's iPhone 5
28:37
my flight from Singapore will depart in 1 hour so will stay connect till possible time
Danko Jevtovic
30:31
Big Thanks to Becky
Vanda's Scartezini
37:42
looks ok for me -allocation - is clear
Judith Hellerstein
38:24
Can we fix up the english/Grammer in the two statements A&B
Judith Hellerstein
38:55
I agree with Marilyn
Samantha Eisner
39:03
Can we have “a” say “functionally separated” as opposed to “independent”?
Vanda's Scartezini
39:21
good point Marilyn
Becky Burr
40:29
Exactly @ Alan.
Samantha Eisner
40:29
+1 to Alan
Judith Hellerstein
40:45
Yes I agree with the wording it is confusing
Julie Bisland
41:04
Reminder to all to mute when not speaking please
Emily Barabas
41:42
discussion of the independent panel is discussed later in the report
Alan Greenberg
41:47
IANA is a separate org but related to ICANN and effectively under the control of the ICANN Board.
Alan Greenberg
42:01
So it is inde. of ICANN Org, but not ICANN.
Judith Hellerstein
42:04
Yes agree with Becky. that is what Had thought and why I was confused with the differences between A&B
Marilyn S Cade
42:17
I have previously raised the question that Alan is raising. This is an ongoing challenge to be independent, if it is within ICANN.
Marika Konings
45:33
Please note that there are further details about the different mechanisms in other parts of the report, including the independent evaluation panel.
Marika Konings
46:30
Correct Erika - the independence of evaluating applications is highlighted in various parts of the report
Judith Hellerstein
48:07
Yes Erika that would be very helpful
Judith Hellerstein
49:01
It will be helpful to have the first two sentences that Erika mentioned in that paragraph before the summary
Judith Hellerstein
50:17
I agree with Alan
Judith Hellerstein
51:57
I like the structure of C and we can use this for A and B
Emily Barabas
52:42
I think the concern previously raised about “grant solicitation, implementation, and evaluation” was that it was not clear what “evaluation” was intended to mean in this context.
Alan Greenberg
52:53
The term "allocation" needs to be defined and we need different (consistent) terms for deciding what projects to do and later deciding if it was a good use of $ (cannot be "elvaluation" in both cases).
Sebastien Bachollet
53:47
What difference between key and main?
Alan Greenberg
54:12
@SEb, 3 vs 4 letters??
Sebastien Bachollet
54:44
We are talking about few characteristics
Sebastien Bachollet
54:55
Yes @Alan ;)
Xavier
54:58
In Mechanism A, the notion that (i) an internal department is created, (ii) it is functionally separated appears to contradict entirely the definition of this scenario. Under this scenario, what is the rationale to have separation of the department within ICANN org? In addition, it is not actually meaningful to define how activities need to be organized within ICANN org as this is a CEO prerogative and authority.
Alan Greenberg
55:10
We still have A: INTERNAL and SEPARATE. Not possible.
Judith Hellerstein
55:32
I agree with Xavier on this
Sebastien Bachollet
56:53
Do we have this document? With the new proposals?
Marika Konings
57:33
@Sebastien - it was distributed earlier this week together with the agenda.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:00:00
Sorry for my late arrival. I have just finished the At-Large webinar
Julie Bisland
01:00:12
welcome, Maureen
Sebastien Bachollet
01:00:29
@Marika thanks
Becky Burr
01:03:04
hi Maureen
Emily Barabas
01:03:17
ok
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:03:52
Hi Becky and all
Judith Hellerstein
01:07:11
Some of the At Large representatives are also in support of mechanism C
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:07:53
Likewise NCSG
Marilyn S Cade
01:08:08
I was one of those who support Mechanism C. I do not support returning to this suggestion.
Marilyn S Cade
01:10:00
Sorry, I should have said “revisiting” whether to keep C. This would be a strong backward step that ignores public comments, and support from others for a Foundation.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:10:35
Support for Mechanism C was very much focused on its independence from ICANN and be more community based
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:10:57
independence from ICANN org
Becky Burr
01:13:10
Just to be clear, no matter what mechanism is selected, the Board has been clear that evaluation of applications will be completely independent
Becky Burr
01:13:21
Evaluation and selection
Becky Burr
01:13:27
by independent panel
Erika Mann
01:14:01
Understood Becky. We will review all comments in the chat room too before we design the next language phase
Ching Chiao
01:17:52
Hi all — sorry for being late for the call
Danko Jevtovic
01:18:02
I have to go now. Thanks!
Erika Mann
01:18:11
Thank you Danko!
Sam Lanfranco
01:20:06
I had to be away for a while (months) and am doing catch up. A naive question. Would it help if the points of contention and concerns were grouped into (a) those that are Mechanism specific, and (b) those that are endemic to all Mechanisms? Not to be addressed now, just food for thought.
Emily Barabas
01:20:28
Note the following sentence “ICANN participants are not excluded from applying to serve on the independent evaluation panel, but they can only be selected if they would have the required expertise and have demonstrated that they have no conflict of interest that could influence or be perceived to influence their independence.”
Erika Mann
01:21:08
Maybe Sam Lanfranco … we will have to review options.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:21:18
I appreciate Erika's comment and reminder about Elliot's recommendation that community could be included - but as Becky mentions their independence of any possible conflict of interest
Emily Barabas
01:21:51
The suggested text is based on the following from the Board’s feedback: “the Evaluation Panel should also be independent of ICANN itself and its constituent parts, including the Board, ICANN org, and the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up the ICANN community. As we have emphasized during CCWG meetings, in Board correspondence, and in subsequent CCWG documentation, neither the Board nor ICANN org will participate in the evaluation of individual applications, nor should any SO or AC be represented - directly or indirectly - on the Evaluation Panel itself. As indicated above; however, we do see an important role for the community outside of the actual evaluation and selection process. “
Marilyn S Cade
01:23:03
I have my hand as well on this issue.
Becky Burr
01:24:22
just to be clear (as Alan knows I’m sure) the ALAC selected Board would not be considered to be independent of ICANN or its constituent parts ...
Alan Greenberg
01:25:08
@Becky. Of course. I was just commenting on the terms "representing" and "coming from".
Becky Burr
01:25:38
I know Alan, just wanted to make sure there wasn’t any confusion
Marika Konings
01:27:14
@Marilyn - could you put your suggested changes in the chat?
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:28:10
I support this change suggested by Marilyn
Marilyn S Cade
01:28:10
Marika, I think you have to use the recording. I was just drafting verbally on the fly.
Becky Burr
01:28:18
There are 3 criteria - 1. No direct or indirect representation of ICANN and constituent parts; 2. Expertise; and 3. No potential conflict of interest
Julie Bisland
01:28:31
yes
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:29:04
+1 to Becky
Emily Barabas
01:29:39
this is new text added from the Board’s input
Erika Mann
01:35:31
Marika, Emily, Joke - I’m not checking our Skype comments, simply because it’s too complicated. If I miss something important, please disrupt me!
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:38:51
I know that I mentioned a version of the PTI but that was before I understood how that was organised. So I stopped that train of thought..
Marika Konings
01:39:29
I believe similarly the way the new gTLD department was structured / operated has been mentioned.
Julie Bisland
01:42:52
@Emily-at your next pause, could you ask about the phone number 44779…283? For attendance and membership verification… thank you!
Emily Barabas
01:44:53
@Julie, sure!
Samantha Eisner
01:44:56
"self dealing" as a regulatory risk is different from the restraints that the community would expect to put on ICANN for the handling of the funds
Julie Bisland
01:48:49
@Emily-cancel my request, they have disconnected.
Samantha Eisner
01:51:46
"retention" in this instance means that ICANN does not transfer the funds to the intermediary foundation before releasing to the applicants
Samantha Eisner
01:52:14
To be clear, there is no aspect of "bribery" here
Samantha Eisner
01:55:42
Also, this response was not about ICANN repurposing auction proceeds funds prior to traunches. We were asked a question about ICANN having access to funds as approved through the evaluation process
Alan Greenberg
01:57:07
If ICANN itself is a recipient (in a RSS or other project), then with Mech C, it is problematic.
Samantha Eisner
01:57:15
Under Mecahnaism C, there is a self dealing concern if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds
Samantha Eisner
01:57:44
there is NOT the same self dealing concern, regulatorily speaking, if ICANN is a project partner for a project funded through the proceeds under A or B
Samantha Eisner
01:59:29
self-dealing conern does not mean outright prohibition, but it requires review in each circumstance to make sure that all are participating appropriately
Judith Hellerstein
02:03:08
I agree with Maureen on this issue
Joke Braeken
02:05:26
just a reminder to please mute your lines when not speaking
Marika Konings
02:07:07
Note that there is already draft language on this page that aimed to translate the ICANN Org clarification.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:08:42
Thanks Erika.. but I just wanted to be sure that the funds for the benefit of communities so that the mechanism we choose allows us to fulfil this objective. Personally I feel that the use of a root server system improve service for communities, but it would be better coming from the community rather than ICANN Org.
Judith Hellerstein
02:09:17
I agree with Maureen
Marilyn S Cade
02:12:08
Samantha, after long conversations, I thought that your/ICANN legal’s explanation is that it is possible to apply to Mech C, but there are unique requirements for each of the 3 mechanisms.
Marilyn S Cade
02:12:35
I’ll just look for any further clarifications.
Becky Burr
02:13:05
“Several years”?
Judith Hellerstein
02:13:25
Yes, I like the use of sveral
Judith Hellerstein
02:13:35
*several
Samantha Eisner
02:13:52
Our research indicates that ICANN is not able to apply directly for funds if administered through a foundation
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:16:29
I agree with Erika.. it is up to the application evaluation committee from what they see are valuable projects - but perhaps put it into the guidelines..
Judith Hellerstein
02:17:06
Yes I agree. I think putting it into the guidelines is better
Marika Konings
02:21:07
and if we can encourage everyone to review the latest version and flag any other issues / concerns prior to the session at ICANN66.
Marika Konings
02:24:09
https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116834
Sam Lanfranco
02:24:55
Thanks to all
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:24:58
See you all in Montreal!
Ching Chiao
02:24:58
bye
Sarah Deutsch
02:25:10
Thanks everyone