August 2017 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds
by Marika Konings Aug. 21, 2017

Aug. 21, 2017

Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W. You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting All, A couple of thoughts on this topic. On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: * Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and * If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Hello, Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: All, I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en[icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs(a)bemarnet.es<mailto:djs@bemarnet.es>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. Alan At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: Hi Erika and all, I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something? Dietmar Stefitz Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> < kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Dear Erika, Dear All, >> Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to >> allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve >> account. >> If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the >> level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be >> equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level >> has not been reached. >> Alanâ€™s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside >> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed >> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve >> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the >> Board and not by this group >> Regards >> Kavouss >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> Please find below the notes and action items from todayâ€™s CCWG-AP meeting. >>> Best regards, >>> Joke Braeken >>> Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017: >>> These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the >>> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript >>> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and >>> are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. >>> Roll Call >>> Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on >>> mute when not speaking. >>> Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. >>> Welcome – DOI >>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management >>> The intention of this presentation is >>> to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, >>> to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be >>> raised. >>> It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an >>> overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead >>> to how they might be managed in the future. >>> Important to note: >>> only conservative investment policies are being used >>> the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives >>> An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, >>> followed by Q&A. >>> Parameters that need to be considered: >>> amount of money >>> horizon >>> level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) >>> Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly >>> stakeholder calls. >>> (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. >>> https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterl…>) >>> Reserve Fund: 64 million >>> New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million >>> Auction proceeds: 233 million >>> Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. >>> Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be >>> taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be >>> legal. >>> This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this >>> question: â€œTo what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or >>> a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€ >>> The group needs to discuss this at a later stage. >>> Next meeting >>> next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC >>> = = = = >>> Action item #1: >>> CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on >>> https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Aucti…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> ) >>> and to share any further questions for Xavier on the groupâ€™s mailing list. >>> Action item #2: >>> Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the >>> attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based >>> on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is >>> encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of >>> objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the >>> next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC. >>> Action item #3: >>> CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the >>> discussion on the mailing list. >>> (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> ) >>> = = = = >>> Joke Braeken >>> ccNSO Policy Advisor >>> joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> >>> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> >>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> >>> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMF…> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

3 4

Use of surveys, ICANN reserves and fund objective(s)
by Sylvia Cadena Aug. 21, 2017

Aug. 21, 2017

Hi everyone, I would like to request the chairs to clarify the use of the surveys. If those are surveys, then they are supposed to be used to get an indication about what the groups leans towards. Not a voting procedure, as clearly warned on the decision-making section of our charter. If that is the case, I would like to request the chairs to clarify when a vote for consensus is required and how that consensus is expressed, so that we can inform our constituencies and express our agreement or disagreement accordingly. Now regarding Xavier’s presentation, I appreciate that he shared with the group how the funds are being invested at the moment. It might be my mistake, that I misunderstood what his presentation was actually going to be about, but I thought he was going to present what mechanisms are available in the US to disburse funds like this, that do not jeopardize the ICANN tax status. There are financial mechanisms to do that, and as they come with their own set of criteria, that can give us ideas about how to use the funds. I hope that part of the conversation can happen in the short term. Now, regarding the possibility of using a portion of the funds to replenish ICANN reserves I have a few points to make: 1. I recommend caution when discussing this in fix amounts. As far as I am aware, the .web lawsuit has not been settled yet (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>), so those 130M could be taking out of the auction proceeds fund, leaving only 100M there. If the group agrees to cover a specific amount, lets say the 12 months amount of 40M mentioned before, then the fund will only have 60M to allocate. Even worse, if the group agrees to the 80M. Please note that reserves mean money that will not be used hopefully for a very long period of time. I suggest to refer to percentages instead. 2. APNIC, for example has an 18 months reserve. The reserve was built over the years, following an investment plan and monitoring expenditure. Having reserves is a good thing, but what is better is to have the strategy behind it to maintain them without expecting a miracle to happen or to win the lotto. Jonathan’s point referring to the charter, and calling the group to discuss “whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds” is very important and puts a lot of things into perspective. So, what rules will the CCWG place for any other “project” that has such a long-term view (the reserves are to be there until something really bad happens and ICANN needs them) and for such a large amount? What safeguards need to be in place? What monitoring will be needed? So, for example, will the CCW be ok to fund other projects that are asking for USD 40M for 20 years? Jonathan mentioned some criteria to consider, which sound very reasonable, but in practice, that will mean assessing ICANN’s financial strategies as well as following up if their policies are well structured. Seems to be that will be a very complicated thing to do. As Carolina and others have expressed before, I do not agree with how the objectives have been regrouped. The survey clearly indicated that the group was in favor of the fund supporting multiple objectives instead of one. Regrouping goes actually against what the group indicated as a preference. Also, by editing the first objective and changing it from “Funds should focus on development, distribution and evolution of the Internet” to “benefit the development, distribution and evolution of the DNS” change its meaning and purpose. The Internet (technically) is not only the DNS. There are other related protocols that are also key and aligned with ICANN’s mission. Although I value the efforts by ICANN staff and the co-chairs to try to build a coherent narrative behind the funds allocation, I fully support the analysis that Daniel Dardailler shared a few days ago: DD wrote: // Without an Open TCP/IP stack, as delivered by IETF, no Open Web stack could have flourished. And without the Open Web, no DNS growth. We can't limit our funding to just the DNS layer, as it stands directly on other Open layers (IP, http) that are required to function properly (and evolve properly) for the DNS to succeed. I think Daniel’s analysis below about what might be in and what might be out is also a relevant input for the discussion. If we can go through a list like this and agree on what is included and what is not, that will certainly provide real clarity about what will be eligible and what will not. The only section of this list that I would like to argue against, is the one saying that the fund should not support the app/platform/content layer as there might be many issues around this, that could be done on this layer that support the objectives discussed on the survey. I presented one such example on my survey responses “A coalition of organizations working on remote participation tools and content receive a long-term grant to support localization efforts for 7 local languages not covered under the existing ICANN’s framework (Bahasa, Tagalog, Dutch, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Urdu). This encourages local and national conversations that feed into the regional and global processes.” DD wrote: // - Not inclusive of the physical layer (however open is can be, too far from ICANN mission, and not clear it needs funding) - Inclusive of the transport and presentation layer (TCP/IP, Web, directly linked to DNS operations, and needs funding) - Inclusive of the addressing layer (IPv6, DNS, it's ICANN core activities, so not clear to me it needs funding since ICANN already has a healthy budget without the auctions. Isn't DNS capacity building part of ICANN responsibilities already ?) - Not inclusive of the app/platform/content layer (too far from ICANN mission, although it needs funding too) - Inclusive of the policy layer (shutdown, net neutrality, etc., even though I agree with others that these are very sensitive topics that would position ICANN on a difficult path vs. some of its constituencies, e.g. the GAC, or telco/DNS players).” Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia(a)apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/>

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your input - Open Internet definition
by Marika Konings Aug. 19, 2017

Aug. 19, 2017

Please use the attached version. Apologies for the inconvenience. Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 08:10 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your input - Open Internet definition Dear All, To continue the CCWG’s deliberation on the topic of ‘Open Internet’, please find attached an overview of the views shared to date on the mailing list. As a reminder, if the CCWG is to include a reference to ‘Open Internet’ in the overall objective for fund allocation, it will need to either include a definition of the term or alternatively use a description that captures the intent of the reference to ‘Open Internet’. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

10 12

For your input - Open Internet definition
by Marika Konings Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear All, To continue the CCWG’s deliberation on the topic of ‘Open Internet’, please find attached an overview of the views shared to date on the mailing list. As a reminder, if the CCWG is to include a reference to ‘Open Internet’ in the overall objective for fund allocation, it will need to either include a definition of the term or alternatively use a description that captures the intent of the reference to ‘Open Internet’. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds
by Marika Konings Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

John, this should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out. Best regards, Marika On 8/15/17, 07:10, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Marika Konings wrote: > Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r… . > You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, but the survey appears as pale grey on white and is nearly illegible to my aging eyes. I believe there is a way to go in and change the style so it's legible black on white. Could you take a look? Tnx. > > Thanks, > > Marika > > From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Organization: Afilias > Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 > To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting > > All, > > A couple of thoughts on this topic. > > On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. > Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. > Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. > > In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. > My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. > But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. > > In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. > > My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. > In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. > If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. > > At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: > > * Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? > and > * If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM > To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting > > Hello, > > Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) > > However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. > > I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. > > Regards > > Sent from my mobile > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: > All, > I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). > > “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ > > I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. > > Thank you. > > Best, > > Xavier > > Xavier Calvez > ICANN – SVP & CFO > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Phone: 310-301-5838 > Mobile: 805-312-0052 > Fax: 310-957-2348 > > > From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM > To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs(a)bemarnet.es<mailto:djs@bemarnet.es>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting > > To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. > > I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. > > But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. > > Alan > > At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: > > > Hi Erika and all, > > I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. > Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. > > I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. > A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. > > I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. > Or did I misunderstand something? > > Dietmar Stefitz > > > > > > > Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: > > MK> Hi Kavouss, > > MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should > MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve > MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to > MK> that effect? > > MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that > MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we > MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. > MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we > MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? > > MK> Michael Karanicolas > > MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh > MK> < kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>> Dear Erika, Dear All, > >>> Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to >>> allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve >>> account. > >>> If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the >>> level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be >>> equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level >>> has not been reached. > >>> Alanâ€™s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside >>> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed >>> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve >>> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the >>> Board and not by this group > >>> Regards > >>> Kavouss > > >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Dear All, > > > >>>> Please find below the notes and action items from todayâ€™s CCWG-AP meeting. > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > >>>> Joke Braeken > > > >>>> Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017: > > > >>>> These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the >>>> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript >>>> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and >>>> are posted on the wiki at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. > > > >>>> Roll Call > > > >>>> Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on >>>> mute when not speaking. >>>> Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. > > > >>>> Welcome – DOI > > > >>>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management > > > >>>> The intention of this presentation is > >>>> to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, >>>> to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be >>>> raised. > >>>> It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an >>>> overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead >>>> to how they might be managed in the future. > > > >>>> Important to note: > >>>> only conservative investment policies are being used >>>> the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives > > > >>>> An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, >>>> followed by Q&A. > > > >>>> Parameters that need to be considered: > >>>> amount of money >>>> horizon >>>> level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) > > > >>>> Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly >>>> stakeholder calls. > >>>> (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterl… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterl…>) > >>>> Reserve Fund: 64 million >>>> New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million >>>> Auction proceeds: 233 million >>>> Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. > > > >>>> Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be >>>> taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be >>>> legal. > >>>> This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this >>>> question: â€œTo what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or >>>> a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€ > >>>> The group needs to discuss this at a later stage. > > > >>>> Next meeting > > > >>>> next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC > > > >>>> = = = = > > > >>>> Action item #1: > >>>> CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> ) >>>> and to share any further questions for Xavier on the groupâ€™s mailing list. > > > >>>> Action item #2: > >>>> Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the >>>> attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based >>>> on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is >>>> encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of >>>> objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the >>>> next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC. > > > >>>> Action item #3: > >>>> CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the >>>> discussion on the mailing list. > >>>> (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> ) > > > >>>> = = = = > > > > > >>>> Joke Braeken > >>>> ccNSO Policy Advisor > >>>> joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > > > >>>> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO-5Btw… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> > >>>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org-5Bccnso… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMF…> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > MK> _______________________________________________ > MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > > > -- > Saludos, > Dietmar > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ > X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jl.ly&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u…

1 0

Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
by Joke Braeken Aug. 13, 2017

Aug. 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting. Best regards, Joke Braeken Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017: These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. 1. Roll Call * Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking. * Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. 1. Welcome – DOI 1. Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management The intention of this presentation is * to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, * to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be raised. It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead to how they might be managed in the future. Important to note: * only conservative investment policies are being used * the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, followed by Q&A. Parameters that need to be considered: * amount of money * horizon * level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly stakeholder calls. (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports) * Reserve Fund: 64 million * New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million * Auction proceeds: 233 million * Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be legal. This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds” The group needs to discuss this at a later stage. 1. Next meeting next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC = = = = Action item #1: CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Aucti…) and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list. Action item #2: Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC. Action item #3: CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the discussion on the mailing list. (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/ ) = = = = Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

16 21

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] reserves, was Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Dear John I agree with you but what I said was, setting a level for reserve account is outside our mandate. Whether or not it is a bad thing or wrong message or otherwise to put money from auction at the top of the predetermined level of reserve account set by ICANN is a matter yet to be dabated and decided upon. In your views it is a bad thing and wrong message to the community. I do not share that view until we fully debated that and come to the same conclusions or otherwise. Regards Kavouss On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:00 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside >> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed >> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the >> reserve >> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by >> the >> Board and not by this group >> > > Technically, the board has to approve any disbursement plans we come up > with, so it's always a board decision, but I agree that using auction money > to top up the reserves is a bad idea for two reasons: > > 1. It would send a bad message to the community. ICANN goes through a > complex multi-year process to decide who to give the auction bonus to > and decides the most deserving recipient is (drum roll) ICANN itself! > We've now confirmed every speculation that ICANN is a bunch of corrupt > navel gazers. > > 2. It would send an equally bad message about ICANN's financial > management. While the timing of the USG transition was hard to > predict, the fact that it would happen and would cost extra was not. > In general, well run organizations match their revenue and expenses, > including maintaining adequate reserves. If ICANN didn't plan ahead, > invaded the reserves, and can only restore them by a top them up from > this one-time piggy bank, what will happen the next time ICANN doesn't > plan for something? > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email, and the AC Chat, MP3 and Adobe Connect recordings below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-10aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7xpbpovxoj/<https://participate.icann.org/p7xpbpovxoj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/YmzwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie --------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 10 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 14:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone., for someone in vacation, enjoy the break. Pablo Rodriguez:Hello Everyone Hadia Elminiawi:hello all Dietmar Stefitz:Hi all from Valencia, Spain Erika Mann:Hello everyone! Marc Gauw:Hello from Amsterdam Alan Greenberg:Waiting to get on bridge Nadira AL-Araj:Hello everyone Ching Chiao:Hi everyone Ching Chiao:I am dialing in Manal Ismail:Hello everyone :) !! Wale Bakare:Hi all. Good morning/afternoon Asha Hemrajani:Good evening Sylvia Cadena:Good night everyone Carolina Caeiro:Hi all Asha Hemrajani:I will only be on the adobe and not able to speak. Erika Mann:I saw it Asha! Asha Hemrajani:Thanks Erika Xavier Calvez:Hello everyone. Julie Bisland:Hello Xavier!!! Julie Bisland:Do you have audio? Pablo Rodriguez:I do not see any slides Kavouss Arasteh:Are the slides avaitable some where Joke Braeken:the slides are posted here as well : https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Marika Konings:If you cannot see the slides, please try to log out / log in to Adobe Connect again. Vanda Scartezini:II am seeing Pablo Rodriguez:I can see them now thank you!! ;) Erika Mann:Perfect Pablo! Erika Mann:Kavouss can you see the slides now? enoss:fixed my adobe problems. now here as regular (ignore my email) Erika Mann:Vanda, hi, great that you can see it Kavouss Arasteh:Xavier, That is perfect and cautionary approach Erika Mann:Great Eliott Kavouss Arasteh:Xavier, it is a result- based management which is quite right Julie Bisland:Thank you, Elliot. Wale Bakare:I can see that the ICANN's objective is mainly focusing on the strategic capabilities Wale Bakare:Are we on the next slide? Vanda Scartezini:Elliot is not able to access adobe as he sent by email, is in the audio bridge only judith hellerstein:Sorry I was late, by earlier call ran late Erika Mann:Welcome Judith Erika Mann:Elliot ... do you need a call from an operator? Erika Mann:... Vanda, saw you're email cc Elliot! Thanks! Stephanie Perrin:Question for Xavier, if not too off-topic. I find the idea of topping up the reserve fund, which was discussed on tist, not quite right. What are his views on this? Seems to be a violation of our charter and of the circumstances under which the funds were collected. Alan Greenberg:@Stephanie, I support the concept but agree that if we decide this is a good use of funds, it may require a charter revision (as I said in my e-mail yesterday). Wale Bakare:@Alan +1 Jon Nevett:@stephanie how would it be a violation of our charter? Maybe I missed an email on that point. Stephanie Perrin:we are supposed to disperse the funds. John R Levine:I don't think the charter lets us support stuff ICANN would do anyway Stephanie Perrin:(I mean come up with a framework for the organization that will disperse, not us disperse them) John R Levine:This is rather different from the per-fund investment policy that Xavier is talking about Wale Bakare:With this presentation, the charter would need to be redrafted, if not totally but major parts Stephanie Perrin:I did recognize that the question is off topic. just want to take advantage of him being here. Nadira AL-Araj:Is the average Credit Quality is synonyms to risk rating? Marika Konings:@Alan - the charter does include the following question: "To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?" Erika Mann:@Wale Why do you think this? John R Levine:@Nadira yes, it is Alan Greenberg:@JOn, in my mind, it is hard to classify a significant contribution to thereserve as a "project" and if we mangle our objectives to include it, I think we will open doors we should not.. IOF this group beleives it is a good use of the funds, we probably need to be allowed to carve that out before we make the rest of the funds available for projects. Nadira AL-Araj:@John, thanks Stephanie Perrin:Marika, so no change in charter required? Jon Nevett:@Xavier At the pace we are moving, maybe performance is more important than liquidity . . . Jon Nevett:Thanks Alan Marika Konings:@Stephanie - that is not necessarily my call to make, but that specific charter question does seem to open the door to a response that could include ICANN should or shoudln't be a beneficiary in the form of a contribution to the reserve fund? John R Levine:@Jon, performance = risk, we do not want to lose principal in this fund John R Levine:@jon, and 1% with a four month maturity is doing really well in this environment Nadira AL-Araj:Is the current interest rate covers the devaluation of US dollars? Ching Chiao:@Jon @Xavier -- i think it's a good point , but how liquid the fund is / will be -- would be an issue. Let's say if we need to put 10M / 100M USD to use, how soon the money can be moved? Alan Greenberg:@Jon, I agree. It is not clear that VERY conservative is the right answer depending on how long we eepect the dispersal period to be. I think it is a descussion we should be having and not taken as a given. Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Marika, very helpful. I think my objection is a moral one more than a technical one. John R Levine:@Nadira, I'm planning to ask but I think this is all denominated in USD, exchange rates don't affect it John R Levine:@alan, how much principal loss are you willing to accept? I hope for this fund it's none. Alan Greenberg:WEll, it matters to the extent that we use non-US investments. John R Levine:@Alan we should ask if there are any non-US Wale Bakare:@Erika, the funds would only be used for projects that align with ICANN's mission but the charter did capture few according to the investment management presentation Jon Nevett:@John, I understand -- Xavier said that the rank was preservation, liquidity and then performance. Asha Hemrajani:I am unable to see all the comments because my adobe froze for a while...regarding the use of the auction proceeds to top up the Reserve Fund...there could be two possibilities: one is carve out some amount in advance of the disbursement and the second that ICANN would need to apply for funds from the eventual organization (like any other applicant). Not expressing any preference here, just observing that these could possibly be the scenarios Wale Bakare:Would it not better to have the Net Present Value (NPV) of each project proposal? Vanda Scartezini:the negative for second column is average form other investiments brought to today or it is an estimative for the future? Nadira AL-Araj:Is the CCWG-Auctionproceeds to determine the value to be invested in each basket? Or it is ICANN financial consultant who will be do that? Jon Nevett:@John preservation is #1, so no one suggesting that we risk losing any of the fund. We could balance liquidity and risk without jeopardizing preservation. I'm sure that Xavier has this covered and rely on his expertise. John R Levine:@vanda, I think that's a tilde as in approximately 1% John R Levine:@Jon, remember that in 2009 the ICANN reserve dropped by over 20%. I hope we're not going to make that mistake again. Vanda Scartezini:ok thanks John Pablo Rodriguez:@Xavier, Please identify the average credit quality of each investment illustrated in the pie chart. Alan Greenberg:For clarity, it would also be good to know the expected worst case variation on the 3rd scenario. Kavouss Arasteh:Xavier, at some time ,kindly indicate whether all money were invested in one single currency?, usually ,in the uncertain prevailing circumstances , as we are,many investors invest in multiple /mixed currency. Joke Braeken:just a small reminder: Please state your name for transcription purposes when speaking John R Levine:sorry, I'm John Levine Joke Braeken:thank you John, it makes it easier to navigate through the audio recordings Vanda Scartezini:kavouss , I am with you- a basket of currency will be more safe nowadays Nadira AL-Araj:@Erika you can skip my question because they are covered and answered. Thank you. Hadia Elminiawi:+1 Alan Vanda Scartezini:YEAH Erika Mann:@Nadira - thanks! Asha Hemrajani:@Pablo, is your question on the credit quality of each investment - the bar chart on the bottom left of the slide on the screen now shows the % distribution. Is that what you are after? Erika Mann:@John, do you want to come back after Alan with another question? Erika Mann:... actually after Daniel! Pablo Rodriguez:@Asha, I am interested in understanding which of the investments are AA and which is A2a Dietmar Stefitz:Xavier, I think you made a great JOB ! Carry on like this. Secure and safe. Erika Mann:@Alan - we could do what some inestment firms are and say we only allocate max $500 000 a year (for example) Erika Mann:... and then the rest would have a longer time horizon to invest ... enoss:term generally relates to return, not risk. I think alan was conflating higher return with higher risk enoss:I understand that misconception enoss:think about higher return correlating with higher risk FOR A GIVEN TERM enoss:(I hope that helped and made sense) Stephanie Perrin:It seems to me we should figure out how much we will spend in a year. Not much at the rate we are going. Therefore we might get a better rate if we locked in a year Erika Mann:Exactly, this was the point I made Stephanie Perrin:So what do we foresee needing this year. Alan Greenberg:I guess from a personal point of view, I would like to know what the investments are that are VERY secure and conservative with zero risk that today yield 5-7% after investment fees. matthew shears:It depends on over what period of time you wish to disburse the funds - the longer the timeline the longer the periods you can lock up funds Wale Bakare:Exactly, @Stephanie Stephanie Perrin:I think we should soon focus on that, a difference of .1% is a project for someone somwhere.... enoss:"I would like to know what the investments are that are VERY secure and conservative with zero risk that today yield 5-7% after investment fees." = none enoss::-) Alan Greenberg:@enoss, that is my point. enoss:@alan I don't think the slide, or any comments, have said zero risk enoss:but maybe I mimssed it Stephanie Perrin:@Matthew yes but we are not likely to make that decision soon.....I think we should just instruct our investment managers to leave us 1 million this year and lock the rest for a year. enoss:or missed it! :-) Vanda Scartezini:enoss - no risk and 5-7% only if you invest in a total conservative here in Brazil but the dollar may be the risk, no no zero risk Stephanie Perrin:Xavier just pointed out that there is no zero risk because of insurance default matthew shears:it will also depend what kind of projects will be funded Wale Bakare:What do we need the 1 million for this year, @Stephanie? Ching Chiao:from my personal view, I do not prefer to start with coming up with how much we need each year. It will be an exercise that somehow waste time and energy Alan Greenberg:Even very low risk (ie vert conservative). If such tings are readily available, I have picked the wrong investment councellers. Ching Chiao:we should keep it simple -- x% goes to ICANN reserve, y% goes to projects over Z years Alan Greenberg:But that is all pretty moot. Our task is to determine the use and thus the timeframe we expect, and then the finance pweople tell us what we can expect. Stephanie Perrin:We dont really need a million, but it wont hurt to pick a number like that just in case we manage to agree to spend some funds on developing our framework, paying for expert advice in fund management, etc. adds up quick and we are not wasting that money, we are simply putting it in short term investments. Stephanie Perrin:I would not want to slow down this process for financial reasons... Ching Chiao:if we start with how much we need for the first year, would it be possible that the fund to be run out in the first year ? (not sure it's good or bad) Ching Chiao:would it be too aggressive and risky ? Manal Ismail:I think if we manage to agree finally on the objectives it would be easier to start deciding on the amounts, timeframe, .... matthew shears:+ 1 Manal jian Zhang:+ 1 Manal Joke Braeken:here is the link to the quarterly stakeholder calls and related info: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterl… Asha Hemrajani:Well said Manal Asha Hemrajani:I need to drop off this call for about 10minutes. Erika Mann:Until next time, Asha! ... sleep well! Nadira AL-Araj:@Alan, determining the timeframe will help the financial consultant to re-schedule the investment to the best benefits Alan Greenberg:@Nadira. Yes. Exactly. That is why our determining the type of grants and expected cashflow/disperment period are what we need to focus on, but the investment options. Erika Mann:We might need the full time to talk today Xavier. I hope you are okay with this. Wale Bakare:I think this group should dissect the three scenarios properly, and against the objectives of Auction Proceeds then determine how much would be needed, when the funds would be needed. Wale Bakare:Maybe, this year or next year. I agree with Alan Carolina Caeiro:is there an official request to consider the reserve fund replenishment? Also, what amount? The full 80 million are one third of the auction proceeds Alan Greenberg:@Erika, perhaps but we are SO far from a 1-yes reserve that I think the "not need it" is not very likely. Manal Ismail:Should we agree to top the reserve fund, is there a prerceived way to decide how much ? Jacob Odame-Baiden:Hello everyone Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Alan. we will need to separate reserve amount for sure, in my opinion Alan Greenberg:@Carolina, I think the ammount that has been informally tossed aroud as a contribution is $40-50m or so. What has been taken out of the reserve to fund the Accountability measures and other recent expenses. Carolina Caeiro:@Alan, I see, thanks Alan Greenberg:10 minutes left. Erika Mann:Alan, indeed Carolina Caeiro:I agree with Alan, too Pablo Rodriguez:@@Xavier, So each bank has a combination of instruments @ various avg credit quality ratings. Thank you! judith hellerstein:@stephanie I agree with you John R Levine:@stephanie, agree 100% Wale Bakare:I agree with you Stephanie Stephanie Perrin:So then the question is, is it legal and ethical because of the terms of the original guidebooK? Alan Greenberg:AERika, we WILL have to come back to this, so I will defer. matthew shears:Great queston Stephanie that needs much greater discussion Wale Bakare:Reserved funds vs. Action Proceeds Wale Bakare:*Auction* Vanda Scartezini:yes we will need to may be have another meeting sooner Hadia Elminiawi:Thanks Xavier and all Carolina Caeiro:thank you Xavier! Ching Chiao:thank you Xavier. Very helpful and constructive Vanda Scartezini:thanks to Xavier. very clear presentation.. Manal Ismail:Thanks Xavier, very informative .. Nadira AL-Araj:Thank Erika, thank you Xavier for the informative session. Xavier Calvez:Very happy to answer follow up questions later. Wale Bakare:Thank Xavier for the presentation matthew shears:thanks all Ching Chiao:thanks everyone! Xavier Calvez:Thank you. Good bye. Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye Hadia Elminiawi:Bye Jacob Odame-Baiden:thanks everyone Brad Verd (RSSAC):thank you Maureen Hilyard:Thanks Xavier and everyone Pablo Rodriguez:Have a good day everyone Marc Gauw:Bye bye , thanks Vanda Scartezini:thanks to all kisses Manal Ismail:Thanks Erika, Marika and all .. Dietmar Stefitz:Bye Bye enoss:bye all. thanks judith hellerstein:thnaks for correcting the time

1 0

Open Internet definition
by Erika Mann Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Concerning: OPEN INTERNET See below an exchange I had with Marika concerning this topic. Our exchange might help to clarify few points ahead of our call today. Talk to you later, Erika Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com> > Date: August 7, 2017 at 8:40:48 AM GMT+2 > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Cc: Ching Chiao <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: For your review - objectives & examples mind map and agenda for next week's meeting > > Good morning Marika - I added few more points below. I copied my original reply and simply added few recommendation how to deal with the 'open Internet' definition part. > > I hope this helps. > > Best, > Erika > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Hi Erika, Ching, > > > > > > > > Following last week’s meeting, please find attached a first attempt to roll > > up the top ranked objectives into an overall objective with identified > > priorities (following the lines of my suggestion last week). In addition, > > I’ve pulled out the examples from the survey that contained the most details > > and as such will be easier to review for consistency with the ICANN mission > > as well as objective(s) (once agreed). > > As identified during the call, the > > concept of “Open Internet” will require definitional work or a rewording. > > Having done a google search, the term often seems associated with net > > neutrality which may not be what the CCWG has in mind. As such, the CCWG > > will need to decide whether to stick with the term and provide a definition > > or whether it prefers to describe what is intended with the term Open > > Internet. Although the other objectives have been excluded as specific > > priorities, one could envision how projects that may focus on some of those > > areas could also fit within the currently identified priorities. As also > > discussed, the topic of replenishing the reserve fund will need to be > > considered separately. It is up to you to decide whether that is a > > discussion you want to have now or to park for later. > > > > EM = Just a quick word of caution. You find in Google always more those connections that are currently more researched and not those that reflect upon a broader and more precise context. > Net neutrality is currently hotly debated in the US and the term open Internet is often used to describe that telcos shall not be allowed to give preferential access to certain players. > There are other environments that are closer to ICANN (open Internet and open source for example) that might present some good examples for investment opportunities, for example in the DNS and security environment (Ash could talk about this). > We therefore need some examples for our environment. (copied from the email I send to you already) > > What to do? > > 1) definition of 'open Internet' in relation to ICANN's mission and in relation to the work of the future fund could/should have various dimensions: > historical preamble: The DNS serves from it's early days an open Internet in the sense ... > positive definition: The 'fund' shall be able to support projects that support an open Internet culture in the sense that projects related to open source developments for the DNS are (for example) allowed to apply ... > negative definition: The 'fund' shall not support projects that don't relate in any way to ICANN's mission and the development of the DNS > examples: lastly provide few examples about what is meant (DNS software and security for example) to guide future project examiners > > > > I’ll be out on vacation until 11 August, but will have intermittent access > > to email so I will be able to include any edits / suggestions you may have. > > My suggestion would be that you provide your feedback by Thursday 3 August > > at the latest so this can be sent to the CCWG by Friday at the latest so > > there is sufficient time for review and feedback prior to next week’s > > meeting. > > > > > > > > With regards to the agenda for next week’s meeting, it appears pretty > > straightforward: > > > > > > > > Roll Call > > Welcome – DOI > > Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management > > Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/) > > Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) > > Confirm next steps & next meeting (next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for > > Thursday 24 August at 16.00 UTC) > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you agree. If so, we’ll go ahead and cancel our prep > > call. Joke will take care of getting this out to the CCWG early next week. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to receiving your feedback. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Marika > > > > > > > > Marika Konings > > > > Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for > > Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > > > > > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting > > the GNSO Newcomer pages. > > > >

3 2

Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 10 August
by Joke Braeken Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 10 August 2017 at 14.00 UTC. A small reminder that you are encouraged to provide your feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities - as well as the clustering of examples - ahead of the next meeting of the CCWG. Best regards, Joke Braeken Proposed Agenda CCWG-AP meeting – Thursday 10 August at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome – DOI 3. Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management 4. Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>) 5. Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached) 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 16.00 UTC) Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0