2. Charter for the CCWG on the Use of New gTLD Auction Proceeds
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

3. What is this about?
Auctions are the mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention within the New gTLD Program. 1 2
Several, but not all auctions have been concluded.
Significant funding has accrued – currently $105.6 million USD. 3
Community discussion on dealing with funds started at ICANN 52. Workshop on the topic at ICANN53 led to a discussion paper prepared by Staff and Public Consultation on paper
Focus on development of framework for disbursement of funds.
Look for different ways to display your data or text by using alternatives to simple bullets.
To adjust the number in the arrow to text or another number, click on the text box around the number, revise.
To add an arrow, click on the arrow, ensure the arrow is highlighted, COPY and PASTE and move to the desired placement, or DELETE if there are too many arrows.
Following review of comments on discussion paper, GNSO Council Chair reached out to all SO/ACs to identify volunteers to participate in a drafting team (DT) to develop a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group. All SO/ACs, except ccNSO, are participating in the DT, including Board Liaisons. 4

4. Current Stage of Discussions
Objective of today’s session: to obtain your input before finalising the charter and submitting it to ICANN’s SO/ACs for their consideration

5. Legal and Fiduciary Constraints
Consistency with ICANN’s Mission as Set out Bylaws
Private Benefit Concerns:
Considerations for grants to organizations
Recommended Prohibition on Grants to Individuals
Must not be used for political activity
Should not be used for lobbying activities
Conflict of Interest Considerations
Procedural Concerns
Financial and Fiduciary Concerns
For further details, see Note to Auction Proceeds DT re legal and fiduciary principles.

6. Charter Sections for Discussion1 2 3
Goals & Objectives
Guiding Principles
Scope 4 5 6
Membership, participants & observers
This is a stylized agenda slide for your presentation.
To delete a box, if there are too many boxes, click the edge of the box, ensure the entire box is highlighted, then DELETE.
To update the numbers and text, click inside the circle for the numbers or in the box for the text, revise the text.
Decision-making
AOB

7. Draft Charter – Goals & Objectives
Develop a proposal(s) for a mechanism to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds
Consider the scope and due diligence requirements Also, how to deal with directly related matters such as potential conflicts of interest
CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not)
Question for discussion: Are the Goals & Objectives of the CCWG sufficiently clear and comprehensive?

8. Draft Charter – Goals & Objectives
”The CCWG is tasked to develop a proposal(s) for consideration by the Chartering Organizations on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As part of this proposal, the CCWG is also expected to consider the scope (see for further details below) of fund allocation, due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN tax status as well as how to deal with directly related matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. The CCWG will NOT make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not). “

9. Draft Charter – Scope (Guiding Principles)
Both for deliberations & final recommendations:
Ensure transparency & openness;
Provide sufficient accountability;
Ensure that processes and procedures are lean & effective;
Avoid any conflict of interest; and
Ensure diversity
Question for discussion: Are the Guiding Principles for the CCWG sufficiently clear and comprehensive?

10. Draft Charter – Scope (Guiding Principles)
“The CCWG is expected to adhere to the following Guiding Principles, both in the context of its deliberations as well as the final recommendations:
Ensure transparency & openness;
Provide sufficient accountability;
Ensure that processes and procedures are lean & effective;
Take all appropriate measures to deal with conflicts of interest, which includes disclosure as part of CCWG process as well as avoiding conflicts at subsequent stages; and
Deal with diversity issues by: Striving for a fair, just and unbiased distribution of the auction proceeds not inconsistent with ICANN’s mission and diversity of members/participants/observers of the CCWG itself, thus ensuring different perspectives and providing for broader discussion and debate and so leading to more informed and effective processes to govern the allocation and disbursement of the proceeds.”

11. Draft Charter – Scope (continued)
CCWG to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on at least the following key questions:
What framework or structure?
Limitations of fund allocation? ICANN’s Mission, Diversity
Safeguards in place to ensure legal & fiduciary compliance?
Expected timeframe for disbursements and termination of framework?
Conflict of interest procedures required?
Priority or preference to organizations or projects from developing economies and under represented groups?
ICANN to oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to another entity?
Determining an appropriate level of overhead?
Level of reporting?
Question for discussion: Are the questions that the CCWG is expected to provide recommendations on sufficiently clear and comprehensive?

12. Draft Charter – Scope (continued)
“The CCWG is required to, at minimum, to give appropriate consideration to and provide recommendations on the following questions, taking into account the Guiding Principles as well as the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined above:
What framework or structure should be designed and implemented to allow for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds, taking into account the legal and fiduciary constraints outlined above as well as the following memo? As many details as possible should be provided, including any implementation guidance the CCWG may have in relation to the establishment of this framework.
As part of this framework, what will be the limitations of fund allocation, factoring in that the funds need to be used in line with ICANN’s mission while at the same time recognising the diversity of communities that ICANN serves?
What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?”

13. Draft Charter – Scope (continued)
“As the auction proceeds are a one-time source of revenue, what is the expected timeframe for disbursements and termination of the framework?
What conflict of interest procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework?
Should any priority or preference be given to organizations or projects from developing economies and under represented groups?
Should ICANN oversee the solicitation and evaluation of proposals, or delegate to another entity, including, for example, a foundation created for this purpose?
What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
What level of reporting should be implemented to keep the community informed about how the funds are ultimately used?”

14. Draft Charter: Membership, participants & observers
Maximum of 5 appointed members per Chartering Organization (ensuring sufficient interest and ideally expertise, commit to actively participate, solicit views of appointing organizations, understand eco-system and needs of internet communities)
CCWG open to any interested participant and/or observer
Each Chartering Organization may appoint a co-chair
Requirement for members and participants to provide Statement of Interest, including mandatory disclosures
Question for discussion: SOI - what mandatory disclosures, if any, should be provided by members & participants in the CCWG?

15. Draft Charter: Membership, participants & observers
“Membership in the CCWG, and its sub-teams (should these be created), is open to Chartering Organization appointed Members, participants and observers. Members are appointed by the Chartering Organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Each Chartering Organization shall appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 Members. Chartering Organizations should make reasonable efforts to ensure that the composite of individual Members:
Have sufficient and appropriate interest (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could include, for example, experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.”
CCWG open to any interested participant and/or observer

16. Draft Charter – Decision-making
CCWG to act by consensus.
The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus which would involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members
Designations to be used:
Full Consensus - no minority disagrees; an absence of objection
Consensus –a small minority disagrees, but most agree
Chartering Organizations
Review and discuss the output
Decide whether to adopt proposals and recommendations
Assumed that ICANN Board of Directors will give due consideration to the Proposal(s) contained in theReport.
Question for discussion: Is the decision-making process sufficiently clear and comprehensive?

17. Draft Charter – Decision-making
“In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
 Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree”
“Following the submission of the final output, each of the Chartering Organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the output and decide whether to adopt the proposals and the recommendations contained within.”
“It is assumed that after submission of the Board Report, the ICANN Board of Directors will give due consideration to the Proposal(s) contained in this Report.”

18. Expected Next Steps Cross-Community Discussion at ICANN56
Review of community input received by DT
Update CCWG Charter
Submit to ICANN SO/ACs for their consideration
Adoption of CCWG Charter
Creation of CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds

19. Share your comments, concerns and questions
Discussion
Share your comments, concerns and questions

20. Appendix

21. Timeline to Drafting Team
March 2015
GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson wrote to SO/AC Chairs to take temperature on the desire for a drafting team to discuss the development of a CCWG 1 5
December 2015
Discussion Paper Report on Comments in Published along with updated Discussion Paper  6
January - February 2016
Requests for nominations to Drafting Team for CCWG
Board Chair nominates Board Liaisons
First Call of Drafting Team/Feb. 2
June 2015
ICANN53, in Buenos Aires:
Panel High Interest Session 
 Workshop Session   3
July - August 2015
Discussion Paper Drafted to take into consideration pertinent issues discussed at ICANN53
March Present
Drafting Team work
First presentation to Community: Tuesday 28 June in Helsinki 7
 History of Discussions on Potential CCWG (Timeline)
In March 2015: Then GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson wrote to SO/AC Chairs to take temperature on the desire for a drafting team to convene to discuss the development of a CCWG on the distribution on new gTLD auction proceeds
June 2015:
Correspondence over March and April 2015 by GNSO Chair with SO/AC Chairs and the Board revealed there was appetite to start discussions. Board Chair reemphasized the need to proceed deliberately and with very broad involvement
GNSO Chair had put out a call for Drafting Team (DT) members and said of the potential CCWG that it was "his expectation that effort would be open to participation by anyone interested; regardless of which SO/ACs decided to serve as a charting organization". This call for drafting team was put on hold following Buenos Aires.
At ICANN53, in Buenos Aires, two sessions were held that focused on the issue of the proceeds from new gTLD auctions:
one Panel High Interest Session which allowed for community members to present their views and ideas about next steps;
and a Workshop Session where staff, Board, and Community discussed the current context of the proceeds and also listened to case studies from SIDN, Nominet Trust, and CIRA that presented different considerations reviewed when setting up their respective foundational/trust work
Both sessions were very productive in understanding current community sentiment in relation to the proceeds, and also in clarifying the current status of the proceeds (segregated from all other proceeds), and the fiscal and legal frameworks which need to be considered in moving forward. Throughout discussions, it emerged that there is a need for community, staff, and the Board to work together in establishing clear principles for next steps
July 2015: It was recognized that, given community focus on the Transition, there is a need to proceed steadily and deliberately moving forward. Jonathan Robinson requested that a discussion paper be drafted that takes into consideration all of the pertinent issues that were discussed during the Buenos Aires meeting.
September 2015: Discussion Paper is published for public comment
December 2015: Discussion Paper Report on Comments in Published along with updated Discussion Paper (Full comment list can be found here: 
January 2016: New GNSO Chair, James Bladel, reached out to Board Chair to ask how Board Chair "envisioned Board engagement on this effort"
February 2016: Board Chair replied, requesting that Erika Mann and Asha Hemrajani be added to the DT as liaisons, along with Sam Eisner and Nora Abusitta as staff advisors.
February - June 2016: Drafting Team meetings held on a regular basis, including one face-to-face meeting in Marrakech during ICANN55 4
September 2015
Discussion Paper is published for public comment

22. Drafting Team and Board Engagement
I think this slide can be in the Appendix
Member
Affiliation
Alan Greenberg
ALAC
Heather Forrest
GNSO vice chair (obs)
Leon Filipe Sanchez Ambia
Erika Mann
ICANN Board
Sylvia  Cadena
ASO
Asha Hemrajani 
Ajay Kumar 
Brad Verd
RRSAC
No representative
CCNSO
Kaveh Ranjbar 
Olga Cavalli
GAC
Russ Mundy
SSAC
Tony Harris 
GNSO
Lyman Chapin
Jonathan Robinson
Samantha Eisner
Staff LIaison
James Bladel
GNSO chair (obs)
Nora Abusitta
Staff Liaison
Donna Austin
Drafting Team and Board Engagement
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

23. Tell us what you think of the Policy Meeting Format.
Download the ICANN56 Mobile App and complete a short survey.
meetingapp.icann.org