April 2018 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

If you haven't already, staff would appreciate it if you could please take a moment to complete this WebEx survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NM82XJS[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-26apr18-en.mp3 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/WQoFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
by Marika Konings April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. As a reminder, there is no call next week. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 10 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Thursday 26 April 2018 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 * Attendance will be taken from Webex * Please remember to mute your lines when not speaking and state your names before speaking for transcription purposes. 2. Welcome / Updates to SOIs/DOIs * Everyone is encouraged to review their SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. 3. Input provided by external experts 3.1. overview of the responses received wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> o summary document with notes of all meetings with experts: see word-file in attachment o summary table in google sheet, including potential gaps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> Highlighted in yellow are the questions that have received no answers. 3.2. CCWG assessment | What topics or issues - if any - require further discussion/consideration before a determination can be made on the preferred mechanism? o Do we need to decide upon a single mechanism or shall we recommend a hierarchy of choices to the public comment period? o Not yet discussed: o Shall we recommend an advisory board (SO/AC/Board/ICANN ORG members) in case of potential conflicts? ( - Nominet and EIB for example - ) o Is there a need to define 'supervision' from ICANN Org further? o One-off fund or long-term fund? · Do we want to define the sunsetting period? * Item 3 and 4 are closely related. First of all, identifying what information, if any, is missing to be able to make a determination about the preferred mechanism, followed by discussing how a determination can be made concerning the preferred mechanism under item 4. * See under 3.1. all the relevant documents which should have been reviewed by the CCWG for this discussion. * Topics identified as part of this agenda item were identified by leadership team, CCWG encourage to indicate if there are other topics that need to be considered. * The objective is to identify what issues, if any, need to be clarified or addressed before a determination can be made with regards to preferred mechanism, but if some of these issues may not need to be addressed at this stage, but they could be deferred to a later stage. * Should an in-house mechanism be chosen, there would need to be some kind of balance, possibly in the form of a Board which would provide external expertise? * Parallel discussion on ICANN Reserve Fund - process still under way, but it includes a question concerning whether auction proceeds could be used to replenish the reserve fund. Not clear how this may impact the CCWG's deliberations. Also issue of appropriateness or not of utilizing a portion of Auction Proceeds. * Consider undertaking a straw poll to get a sense of where the group stands - many issues have been extensively discussed. Loudness and frequency of comments should not be a determining factor. * Has the group fully explored what the liability is for Board / Staff it they would be running a fund distribution mechanism? * Need to be careful that there is understanding of potential conflicts and be neutral when analyzing the potential conflicts for the organization. * Need to be more fact based, cannot rely solely on opinion. * Regardless of which mechanism that is chosen to do the work, there would always be a certain level of independence and following whatever rules are set by the CCWG for disbursement of funds. Conflating different issues here as independence and recommendations would apply to any mechanism chosen. * Not a lot of research has been done yet regarding liability - within the ICANN system, the more the decisions are placed in-house, the whole range of accountability mechanisms would apply and could be activated. If it would be done with a third party, any such requirements would be contractually established. No additional liability compared to other organizations that would be disbursing funds, but due consideration would need to be given to building good structures and processes. Legal will check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability, but it is not obvious at this stage. * Has independence already been defined in the context of the CCWG deliberations? See for example PTI - but in the context of auction proceeds, there should be a majority of independent directors to ensure there is a balance with external oversight. Could easily be achieved with community representation and/or external expertise. * Cira has the same size and type fund as Nominet and has always insourced. Community members do the heavy lifting with some staff support. * CCWG may also need to confirm whether there is still support for previously agreed preliminary agreements or whether opinions have changed based on input from external participants Action item #1: Samantha Eisner to check whether there is anything that is unique to ICANN and as such would affect liability for ICANN Org / Board and report back accordingly, if possible ahead of the launch of the survey. 4. Next steps in making a determination of what is the preferred mechanism: o Criteria? o Survey? o Ranking? * Conduct a straw poll survey to assess current thinking of CCWG on mechanisms * There are preconceived notions that may not be correct that could influence responses - as such, needs to be linked to the criteria that you are looking for. * Staff / leadership team to work on a draft survey that is to be shared with the CCWG for review before launching it. * Possible outcome for Initial Report could be a recommendation for a single model or ranking of models - will depend on outcome of the survey. * Need to be careful in drafting the survey that independence is only applicable to one mechanism versus others. Action item #2: Staff to work with co-chairs to develop proposed straw poll survey which is to be shared with the CCWG for review and input prior to launch. Action item #3: Following circulation of straw poll survey, CCWG to review and provide input as soon as possible. 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 3 May 2018 at 14.00 UTC * No meeting next week to allow for prep time for survey and discussions on the mailing list. Next meeting will be scheduled for 10 May at 14.00 UTC. 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

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-12apr18-en.mp3 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/ioXpB Staff would appreciate it if you could please take a moment to complete this WebEx survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NM82XJS Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

2 1

proposed agenda CCWG Auction Proceeds on Thu, 26 April 2018 (14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC. You are encouraged to review the linked documents ahead of the meeting and share any comments and / or proposed edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Joke Braeken Proposed agenda 1. Roll Call 1. Welcome / Updates to SOIs/DOIs 1. Input provided by external experts 3.1. overview of the responses received * wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B * summary document with notes of all meetings with experts: see word-file in attachment * summary table in google sheet, including potential gaps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fPc9XJr4dCyS8CAUUC6c7O3J6P6HYYDu7Z7… Highlighted in yellow are the questions that have received no answers. 3.2. CCWG assessment | What topics or issues - if any - require further discussion/consideration before a determination can be made on the preferred mechanism? * Do we need to decide upon a single mechanism or shall we recommend a hierarchy of choices to the public comment period? * Not yet discussed: o Shall we recommend an advisory board (SO/AC/Board/ICANN ORG members) in case of potential conflicts? ( - Nominet and EIB for example - ) o Is there a need to define 'supervision' from ICANN Org further? o One-off fund or long-term fund? · Do we want to define the sunsetting period? 1. Next steps in making a determination of what is the preferred mechanism: * Criteria? * Survey? * Ranking? 1. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 3 May 2018 at 14.00 UTC Best regards, 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

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC.
by Marika Konings April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

Dear All, In follow up to action item #1 and #2, the preamble and example documents have been uploaded as google docs to allow everyone to collaborate on updating these documents to address the input that has been provided by the ICANN Board. For the preamble, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8k…. Note that in the first column you will find the input provided by the ICANN Board to facilitate your review. For the project examples, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0…. Note that this version incorporates the suggestions that were sent by Daniel to the list on 19/4. Everyone, but especially those that volunteered to work on this during the meeting, are encouraged to include their proposed comments and/or edits by Monday 7 May at the latest. Should there be a need / desire to schedule a separate call to work on this, please let staff know and we can assist you as needed. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 17:15 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. Dear all, Please find below some high-level notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. Notes & Action Items 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 * Attendance will be taken from the webex room * Audio only: Kavouss Arasteh, Tony Harris, Xavier Calvez * Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise. 2.Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates No updates 3.Review and discuss proposed response to ICANN Board Draft proposal made by Marika: The letter has been shared with the CCWG as an early draft. The group is advised to review the letter, comments are welcome. A next draft will be prepared, following comments by the group. There is an opportunity to further discuss this during the next call. Preliminary comments have been submitted by Daniel Dardailler. Regarding the preamble: He advises to give more detail on what “good internet” means. Reminder by Erika on our approach: Basic idea was not to identify a philosophical general approach. In working with the board, we now have a much more precise terminology which captures the grey areas. The projects will be in service with the mission, that is the basic idea. We are not dropping the preamble completely. But we should not continue to work on it forever, and it would be good to send it to the implementation team Marilyn supports the intent behind Daniel’s comments. Good amount of work has been done. Focus by board liaisons is much appreciated. However, we are also writing for the broader community, to make sure they understand. Glad to hear we are not discarding our work. Important to keep it. It is difficult to explain to a business person what “in service of icann’s mission means”. The board is very close to what ICANN’s mission is. Sylvia Cadena agrees that we need to continue to work on the preamble. Erika confirmed that a careful balancing act is needed here. Once we send out the next letter to the Board, we will include a status as well. Draft of the newsletter and draft accompanying email to be shared with the group, before it is sent out to the SO/AC leaders. Sylvia Cadena and Marilyn Cade volunteered in the chat to continue working on the preamble. Action item #1: Volunteers who want to work on further reviewing the preamble are kindly invited to step forwards. Next draft of the preamble should be ready in 2 weeks time, by 3 May 2018. Daniel mentioned that sharing a document one day ahead of the meeting is not advisable. 4.Review and discuss proposed update to examples document (see attached) Action item #2: The group is kindly advised to review the list of examples by Tuesday next week, when the leadership team will meet. Thus staff can review the input received, and send an updated version on Wednesday to the mailing list. Volunteers: Marilyn Cade, Mary Uduma, Vanda Scartezini. Action item #3: Staff potentially organise a call with this small group. Review as well the comments made by Daniel and Elliott. Staff will share a new draft, based on the comments received. To be further discussed next week. Page 4, item 4. Written comments will be provided by Marilyn on the list. Alternative wording will be suggested where this will be used as an example. Suggestion: “Development” to to be replaced with “engagement in such activity”. 5.(at 14.30 UTC) Exchange with external experts – Marc D’Hooge, Managerial Adviser, Innovation Finance Advisory, European Investment Bank Erika sent a short introduction to Marc to the mailing list, and the work he has been doing. The CCWG is searching for a mechanism/funding model. One-off amount, obtained via auctions. Our aim is to have a recommendation on the funding model by June. Group is particularly interested on how cooperation/oversight can work between 2 institutions. Short introduction by Marc D’Hooge. Confirmation that the call is recorded. Working at EIB since 20 years, EIB is active in innovation finance since late 90ies. Interesting component added: working together with the European Commission on innovative projects. The cooperation with the European institutions. EIB has the financial expertise, support needed by promoters to the market. Combine grants and financial instruments in an efficient way. If you do not own the expertise on the objective setting side or the financial side, you need to look for partners, that focus on the concrete financial support. ICANN is not a bank, if you would like to bring the money to the market, in line with investment objectives, and link to connectivity, you need to look for a partner who is able to respond to the business needs that you would like to drive finance. Marilyn Cade : ICANN has a responsibility to maintain its tax status and avoid trust issues. Note in the chat from Nadira: I remember ICANN financial advisor said that having return on the proceed doesn't comply with ICANN status The commission had the idea to develop alongside the grants, a financial instrument, where the money invested by the EC not only generated returns, but also where the returns and initial investments can be recycled in new projects of the same nature. EIB now also have projects that combine the grant aspect and the financial aspects, for instance for breakthrough projects in for instance the connectivity range, or energy. Vanda Scartezini has a question regarding the grants distributed in Europe. Marc confirmed that the work of EIB encompasses all member states and also countries around Europe (e.g. Ukraine, nordic countries, Turkey …). Work can be for one particular country, or for multiple countries. Innovation/finance can be done all over the world, but either the project or the promoter needs to be European. Erika mentioned that the main idea is to have a one-off fund, shut down afterwards. Erika invites Marc to explain the tensions, or what he would see as really important in terms of a merger between 2 entities. In case the CCWG would make a recommendation to work with a different entity, what would be the main issues? Marc: reason to look for a partner, is to do things on your behalf, that you cannot do so yourself. The bank is owned by the member states of the European Commission, so they are closely aligned. You want to keep control on what the other partner is doing. EIB has a delegation agreement with the commission all the operational work, related to finding and financing the projects that comply with the objectives set out by the EC. The steering Committee convenes twice a year, and steers the business development of the common cooperation’s scheme within a given budget period. You need to build trust between the institutions. This took time, almost 2 years. In terms of bringing finance to the market, all in line with what the commission is also spending on the grants, for projects that have an economic return. These are complementary, not competitive. Marc volunteered to share a presentation on how it works, the mechanism behind it, and an evaluation report: the commission has delegated the full operational responsibility of bringing the funds to the market, including negotiation, monitoring, disbursement, evaluation …. Needs to be in line with the policy objectives of the research and development programme. The bank is existing since 60 years, and we are in business since 30 years. Samantha Eisner has a question on the mechanism between EIB and the government in disbursing the information. What are the governance tools used? Audits? Regular reporting? To check that the EIB is staying within the boundaries of what you have been entrusted to do? Marc: what can we finance? That is clearly specified. Includes for instance also the research done in institutions, based on thoughts by the commission that wanted to promote innovation. Not only via grants, but also via bigger amounts. To ensure the strategy is aligned there is a framework legal basis. The 2 documents are aligned from a policy point of view. Throughout the programme, EIB is free to invest in projects that are in compliance with the objectives. There is a big trust basis by the EC. The commission has a seat on the EIB Board. Erika asking about administration costs. Some say 5% is the average. Marc cannot give full details, however there are 2 types of revenues: * EIB charges client on all transactions a small margin, covering working costs * The risk revenues on transactions go to the Commission. What the commission gives back is a kind of fee remuneration which consists of 2 big parts: admin compensation of the whole programme, which also includes audit and evaluation. Second component is based on the performance. They have milestones, and more money is received, the higher the milestone that was reached. (1% per annum based on the money invested by the Commission - 7 year period) This is something the bank can accept as a sustainable activity on a long term. Commission can perpetuate the scheme based on return on investments from previous schemes. 6.Confirm next steps and next meeting – Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC * CCWG needs to start considering what else is needed, if anything, to be able to make a determination on which mechanism is preferred. May need another call to determine whether we have enough facts or only opinions? Everyone encouraged to start discussions on the mailing list as timeline is very tight. Action item #4: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list concerning input provided by external experts (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. Best regards, 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=DwMGa…>

2 1

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC.
by Joke Braeken April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all, Please find below some high-level notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. Notes & Action Items 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 * Attendance will be taken from the webex room * Audio only: Kavouss Arasteh, Tony Harris, Xavier Calvez * Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise. 2.Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates No updates 3.Review and discuss proposed response to ICANN Board Draft proposal made by Marika: The letter has been shared with the CCWG as an early draft. The group is advised to review the letter, comments are welcome. A next draft will be prepared, following comments by the group. There is an opportunity to further discuss this during the next call. Preliminary comments have been submitted by Daniel Dardailler. Regarding the preamble: He advises to give more detail on what “good internet” means. Reminder by Erika on our approach: Basic idea was not to identify a philosophical general approach. In working with the board, we now have a much more precise terminology which captures the grey areas. The projects will be in service with the mission, that is the basic idea. We are not dropping the preamble completely. But we should not continue to work on it forever, and it would be good to send it to the implementation team Marilyn supports the intent behind Daniel’s comments. Good amount of work has been done. Focus by board liaisons is much appreciated. However, we are also writing for the broader community, to make sure they understand. Glad to hear we are not discarding our work. Important to keep it. It is difficult to explain to a business person what “in service of icann’s mission means”. The board is very close to what ICANN’s mission is. Sylvia Cadena agrees that we need to continue to work on the preamble. Erika confirmed that a careful balancing act is needed here. Once we send out the next letter to the Board, we will include a status as well. Draft of the newsletter and draft accompanying email to be shared with the group, before it is sent out to the SO/AC leaders. Sylvia Cadena and Marilyn Cade volunteered in the chat to continue working on the preamble. Action item #1: Volunteers who want to work on further reviewing the preamble are kindly invited to step forwards. Next draft of the preamble should be ready in 2 weeks time, by 3 May 2018. Daniel mentioned that sharing a document one day ahead of the meeting is not advisable. 4.Review and discuss proposed update to examples document (see attached) Action item #2: The group is kindly advised to review the list of examples by Tuesday next week, when the leadership team will meet. Thus staff can review the input received, and send an updated version on Wednesday to the mailing list. Volunteers: Marilyn Cade, Mary Uduma, Vanda Scartezini. Action item #3: Staff potentially organise a call with this small group. Review as well the comments made by Daniel and Elliott. Staff will share a new draft, based on the comments received. To be further discussed next week. Page 4, item 4. Written comments will be provided by Marilyn on the list. Alternative wording will be suggested where this will be used as an example. Suggestion: “Development” to to be replaced with “engagement in such activity”. 5.(at 14.30 UTC) Exchange with external experts – Marc D’Hooge, Managerial Adviser, Innovation Finance Advisory, European Investment Bank Erika sent a short introduction to Marc to the mailing list, and the work he has been doing. The CCWG is searching for a mechanism/funding model. One-off amount, obtained via auctions. Our aim is to have a recommendation on the funding model by June. Group is particularly interested on how cooperation/oversight can work between 2 institutions. Short introduction by Marc D’Hooge. Confirmation that the call is recorded. Working at EIB since 20 years, EIB is active in innovation finance since late 90ies. Interesting component added: working together with the European Commission on innovative projects. The cooperation with the European institutions. EIB has the financial expertise, support needed by promoters to the market. Combine grants and financial instruments in an efficient way. If you do not own the expertise on the objective setting side or the financial side, you need to look for partners, that focus on the concrete financial support. ICANN is not a bank, if you would like to bring the money to the market, in line with investment objectives, and link to connectivity, you need to look for a partner who is able to respond to the business needs that you would like to drive finance. Marilyn Cade : ICANN has a responsibility to maintain its tax status and avoid trust issues. Note in the chat from Nadira: I remember ICANN financial advisor said that having return on the proceed doesn't comply with ICANN status The commission had the idea to develop alongside the grants, a financial instrument, where the money invested by the EC not only generated returns, but also where the returns and initial investments can be recycled in new projects of the same nature. EIB now also have projects that combine the grant aspect and the financial aspects, for instance for breakthrough projects in for instance the connectivity range, or energy. Vanda Scartezini has a question regarding the grants distributed in Europe. Marc confirmed that the work of EIB encompasses all member states and also countries around Europe (e.g. Ukraine, nordic countries, Turkey …). Work can be for one particular country, or for multiple countries. Innovation/finance can be done all over the world, but either the project or the promoter needs to be European. Erika mentioned that the main idea is to have a one-off fund, shut down afterwards. Erika invites Marc to explain the tensions, or what he would see as really important in terms of a merger between 2 entities. In case the CCWG would make a recommendation to work with a different entity, what would be the main issues? Marc: reason to look for a partner, is to do things on your behalf, that you cannot do so yourself. The bank is owned by the member states of the European Commission, so they are closely aligned. You want to keep control on what the other partner is doing. EIB has a delegation agreement with the commission all the operational work, related to finding and financing the projects that comply with the objectives set out by the EC. The steering Committee convenes twice a year, and steers the business development of the common cooperation’s scheme within a given budget period. You need to build trust between the institutions. This took time, almost 2 years. In terms of bringing finance to the market, all in line with what the commission is also spending on the grants, for projects that have an economic return. These are complementary, not competitive. Marc volunteered to share a presentation on how it works, the mechanism behind it, and an evaluation report: the commission has delegated the full operational responsibility of bringing the funds to the market, including negotiation, monitoring, disbursement, evaluation …. Needs to be in line with the policy objectives of the research and development programme. The bank is existing since 60 years, and we are in business since 30 years. Samantha Eisner has a question on the mechanism between EIB and the government in disbursing the information. What are the governance tools used? Audits? Regular reporting? To check that the EIB is staying within the boundaries of what you have been entrusted to do? Marc: what can we finance? That is clearly specified. Includes for instance also the research done in institutions, based on thoughts by the commission that wanted to promote innovation. Not only via grants, but also via bigger amounts. To ensure the strategy is aligned there is a framework legal basis. The 2 documents are aligned from a policy point of view. Throughout the programme, EIB is free to invest in projects that are in compliance with the objectives. There is a big trust basis by the EC. The commission has a seat on the EIB Board. Erika asking about administration costs. Some say 5% is the average. Marc cannot give full details, however there are 2 types of revenues: * EIB charges client on all transactions a small margin, covering working costs * The risk revenues on transactions go to the Commission. What the commission gives back is a kind of fee remuneration which consists of 2 big parts: admin compensation of the whole programme, which also includes audit and evaluation. Second component is based on the performance. They have milestones, and more money is received, the higher the milestone that was reached. (1% per annum based on the money invested by the Commission - 7 year period) This is something the bank can accept as a sustainable activity on a long term. Commission can perpetuate the scheme based on return on investments from previous schemes. 6.Confirm next steps and next meeting – Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC * CCWG needs to start considering what else is needed, if anything, to be able to make a determination on which mechanism is preferred. May need another call to determine whether we have enough facts or only opinions? Everyone encouraged to start discussions on the mailing list as timeline is very tight. Action item #4: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list concerning input provided by external experts (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. Best regards, 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

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 19 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the CCWG Auction Proceeds call held on Thursday, 19 April 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-19apr18-en.mp3 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/IAQFBQ Staff would appreciate it if you could please take a moment to complete this WebEx survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NM82XJS[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

FW: CCWG-AP Follow Up
by Marika Konings April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Dear All, Please find below a follow up message from Sarah Berg following her participation in the CCWG’s meeting of last week (see https://community.icann.org/x/ioXpB for further details). Best regards, Marika From: Sarah Berg <sarah.berg(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 05:52 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: CCWG-AP Follow Up Dear Marika, Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the CCWG-AP regarding best practices. As a follow up, I would like to share a study conducted by Foundation Center regarding operational costs in foundations. Although the study focused on the economic impact of the 2009 financial crisis on 1,900 of the largest foundations in the United States, the data reflects a diversity of costs depending on level of assets and staff size. As the CCWG-AP reflects upon costs within their decision making matrix, I want to stress that the costs depend upon the levels of control, use of resources (time, energy, ties) and the unique role ICANN plays within the internet landscape. For example, its important to acknowledge that there will be inherent costs of regulation and scrutiny that are specific to ICANN as well as time/cost used in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder approach. I hope this study highlights the industry standard, but also the variety of factors that play into costs. I am happy to respond to any further questions as the group proceeds in their deliberations. Kind regards, Sarah Berg

1 0

Proposed agenda -new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC. You are encouraged to review the attached documents ahead of the meeting and share any comments and / or proposed edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group Meeting – Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC. As a reminder, all conference call details will be circulated on the “ntfy” (short for “notify”) mailing list to which members only are subscribed in a read-only mode. These details must not be circulated on the wider public WG mailing list. To avoid burdening the WG public mailing list, please send your apologies ahead of time (apologies after the call will no longer be taken into account) and your dial-out requests to the GNSO Secretariat: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> in advance of the meeting. 1. Roll call 2. Welcome / SOI & DOI Updates 3. Review and discuss proposed response to ICANN Board (see draft letter attached) 4. Review and discuss proposed update to examples document (see attached) 5. (at 14.30 UTC) Exchange with external experts – Marc D’Hooge, Managerial Adviser, Innovation Finance Advisory, European Investment Bank 6. Confirm next steps and next meeting – Thursday 26 April at 14.00 UTC 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-…>.

4 6