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

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Per some of the comments made during the call, the work plan (attached) has been updated to reflect that the meeting on 26 April will be dedicated to reviewing the input received to date and identifying what, if any, further information is required. Of course, that should not prevent you from reviewing the input received to date (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B) and start that discussion on the mailing list. As a reminder, the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC. Our guest speaker will be Marc D'Hooge from the European Investment Bank. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 12 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_…>. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from the webex room · Audio only: Tony Harris · Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise. Welcome - SOI/DOI update Exchange with external experts – Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners · See input provided input[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> in writing · Short introduction - see also information shared on the mailing list regarding Sarah's background and current relationship with ICANN · Advising ICANN staff but hopefully the information that is shared is very much the same that Sarah has shared on other occasions · Has extensive experience in advising non-profits in their charitable operations. Works currently for the Pew Charitable Trust - over 70 years of grant-making experience and evaluating. · ICANN has opportunity to create and shape something with lasting impact · Amount of funds is still in play, regardless it is still important to consider cost, control, objectives, resources and competence · Most mechanisms are structured to sunset at some point in time · Need to consider: time, energy input, experience being used, connection and ties of current and potential partners, money. · Temporary funds, even though that may sound short, is not necessarily a short timeline. Needs to be thought in place how funds are disbursed and prudently distributed. · Objectives: mission of governing body is key, but also important to defend what within the mission is important to fund. Mission and objective will drive how you are going to structure the rest of your projects. What are your goals, objectives, scope of work and how do you consider success? What is the role that ICANN wants to play in the charitable landscape and how do you want to play out your mission? What are the needs that ICANN as an entity sees in this environment? Are there gap areas that need to be addressed? What are the changes you want to make, and what do you not want to fund? See for example how this is defined at the Gates Foundation. · What would make the CCWG happy with its progress as it is also investing time/resources? What impact do you intend to make and how you are going to measure it? · Responses to these questions will also give insight into the level of control you want/need to have? For example, who are decision makers and provide fiduciary oversight? Is it the Board, a new Board that oversees the mechanism? How do you bring in the multi-stakeholder aspect of ICANN in fund allocation / prioritization? · Who are the leaders managing control? · Fund risk, reputational risk - you will need experts to advice on those aspects, so engagement with experts is important. · Competence - type of investment projects, different options to be considered. Different types of fund disbursements - grants, seed investment, donor, etc. · Cost: direct & indirect costs, will depend on mechanism chosen. How you utilize your resources, projects and where you want to leverage project? Administrative expenses - some use 5% of operational budget, but it can also be higher than that based on the needs, mission of the organization. Questions: How to leave enough structure to disburse funds, but then let ICANN get back to its mission? * A lot of organizations can be in a similar position where they may have one-off disbursement. Structure is still the same even if it includes a sunset provision, still need efficient / effective structure that allows for the impact that you want to make. Disbursement will be confined by ICANN's mission and does not allow support many charitable projects - how to define scope environment in this context? * Step back and given the mission you have, what are the gaps that you are seeing, where are the specific needs within the landscape that you are working in that may be underfunded or specific issues that do not have the attention needed. Explore what that looks like and see if you can come up with specific funding areas, which may be completely new with no one else in that space. What are the pressure points, what are the needs and how can you meet those needs. Should we more specific about the type of awards that can be provided? * Purpose of CCWG is to advice how disbursement of funds should occur, no decision on who would receive the funds or what that process would look like. It is important to be aware of who is in that landscape and what would that look like, factoring in ICANN's role and place in the environment. Levels of control - what is your opinion with regards to which mechanism is best suited for appropriate levels of control? * Fiduciary oversight, whomever is responsible for that, that is where a lot of the control occurs. In ICANN, Board has final say and responsibility. What would it look like within this scenario? What is the Board's engagement, no matter what scenario you use? If you have a foundation, Board would likely still be involved with representation of Foundation Board - that might provide independence and oversight? If you move it to another granting organization, you may not have financial oversight but you have granting oversight. It really depends on what level of control you want, who makes the final decision and what is the role they are expected to play? How is the multistakeholder aspect reflected in the structure? Could be part of the evaluations team, for example. There are costs involved in any mechanism that is chosen. Costs associated with normal grant cycle, there may be specific ICANN costs. As such, not possible to give a specific number. Budget is going to depend on objectives - if you decide what is concerned success and how to make leveraged impact, that will decide how you utilise the funds and how the oversight of those funds come into play. Need to be clear about what we are going to accomplish and how we are going to measure success. Challenge is that allocation of funds is limited through operational mission as funds cannot be allocated to topics already addressed through operational mission. How are others able or supposed to address those gaps? Inherent conflict that needs to get resolved. ICANN's mission is purely operational, if we identify a gap, it needs to be something that requires to be solved. It may be figuring what seed money can go into another aspect that is forming on the horizon that ICANN can invest in but necessarily needs to manage. PEW selects projects that can be done within 5 years from 40 different topics. Is not necessarily scope creep - something that can be done for a certain period of time, if it doesn't succeed or meet criteria of success, you no longer fund it. Expenses relating to impact - expenses you incur such as administrative expenses (staff costs), type of grants made, travel (related to projects funded - evaluation), reporting structures. Indirect costs - executive oversight, meetings / travels for those that make decisions. All these need to be built into the overall budget. Data exists on the size of foundations and the expense ratio (5-10%). Is there any itemized info available or only in the aggregate? Are there any examples of other organizations that have a narrow mission but where the granting mission may have gone broader? In some instances where there would be an entire new entity, with a separate board. Next steps / next meeting * See email circulated by Erika just prior to this meeting providing some input on recent mailing list discussions - please review. * Planning for ICANN62 – a request has been submitted for a high interest topic session that would allow the CCWG to present and discuss its Initial Report and recommendations. This request will now need to be considered by the SO/AC Planning Committee for ICANN62. * 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: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list concerning input provided by external experts (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. 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

Reply to various emails concerning the Preamble and Funding principles
by Erika Mann April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

*Dear All - * *We like to make some proposals that relate to the discussion you were having in various email exchanges. We discussed these topics in the leadership team on Tuesday and we do hope you find our recommendations helpful. We may have some time today at the end of our exchange with Sarah to talk about these topics.* - *In relation to the discussion about the preamble, we recommend the following approach: As discussed prior to ICANN61, instead of reworking the preamble at this stage, we recommend to defer this item to the implementation phase with an explanation of the purpose this preamble should serve. We should explain that part of the reason why we thought we needed such a preamble was to help future project evaluators to understand ICANNs mission driven environment. If you remember, we were worried that a too narrow understanding of the mission statement, would create problems in the future. In the meantime we achieved an understanding - with the Board - that projects that 'are in service of the mission'' might still fall within the mission and might therefore receive funding. In addition, the examples we collected, provide guidance for project evaluators on what is considered to fall within service of ICANN's mission. The details are subsequently expected to be worked out by the implementation review team (which will also consist of community members), supported by staff. * - *Additionally, we will have to send a reply to the most recent letter from the Board, the Board touched on this topic in particular. We will send you our draft for review shortly so we can come back to this discussion.* - *In conjunction with the previous point, we want to re-emphasize that the CCWG is expected to focus on high level recommendations that address the questions that are outlined in the charter. As such, we would like to encourage us all to focus on those high-level aspects. For example, there has been some discussion on this list on the size that the different tranches of funding allocation should have. We do not think that this is something that the CCWG is asked to decide on – instead, a CCWG recommendation could be that funding should be allocated in tranches with further details to be worked out in the subsequent stages following adoption of the recommendations.* - *Similarly, suggestions were made on the list to set aside funds to support ICANN to undertake research in a specific area. As noted in the charter, the CCWG is not tasked to make decisions with regard to which projects should be funded, instead, one of the charter questions asked, whether ICANN Org could be a beneficiary of some of the auction funds. Therefore the CCWG should focus on that question.* - *Of course, it is not our intention to stifle discussion, but as our timeline is short, we want to make sure that everyone focuses on what needs to get done in order to publish an Initial Report by ICANN62. As such, we would like to encourage you to review the input that has been received to date by external experts, both in the form of responses to the survey as well as participation in our calls, so you can let us know what, if anything, is missing to facilitate a determination of which mechanism(s) is preferred and should be considered in detail in the next phase of our work. If there is time remaining on our call on Thursday, we will touch upon these questions.* *Warmest regards, * *Erika *

4 8

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Hi Marilyn, Note that Sarah was introduced to the CCWG at an early stage of the deliberations (see email attached) but I recognize that some may not have joined the CCWG at that stage and/or may not have reviewed previous communications. Best regards, Marika From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 15:36 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC Just to be very clear, so that I am very clear. The person that we are speaking with is a contracted party to ICANN org. I value having paid consultants but I just want to be sure I know when I am speaking 'with a paid consultant, or a volunteer. The value to paid consultant is that they have accountability to be independent. But just checking as when the staff introduced the name of the speaker, one had to read the input document to learn that the speaker is a paid consultant. In the future, let's be sure to always be clear about affiliations and contracted roles. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:21 PM To: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC. As noted below, you are strongly encouraged to review the written input[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protec…> that Sarah Berg provided and share any follow-up or clarifying questions in advance of the meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG – Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll call 2. Welcome – SOI/DOI Updates 3. Exchange with external experts – Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners (please review Sarah’s input[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protec…> prior to the meeting and post any follow-up or clarifying questions you may have to the mailing list) 4. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 19 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[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protec…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protec…>.

5 5

Proposed Agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC. As noted below, you are strongly encouraged to review the written input<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79439109/Sarah%20Berg%20-%…> that Sarah Berg provided and share any follow-up or clarifying questions in advance of the meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG – Thursday 12 April at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll call 2. Welcome – SOI/DOI Updates 3. Exchange with external experts – Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners (please review Sarah’s input<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79439109/Sarah%20Berg%20-%…> prior to the meeting and post any follow-up or clarifying questions you may have to the mailing list) 4. Confirm next steps & next meeting – Thursday 19 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-…>.

2 1

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items
by Sylvia Cadena April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

Hi everyone, First of all apologies for the radio silence. I am sorry I was not able to join you in Puerto Rico and that I have missed the last couple of meetings, as they were at times were I was on planes or during a public holiday. I am glad to see progress on the discussions and would like to make a few comments. 1. I think we finally found the right wording. "In service of ICANN's mission" gives real meaning to what the auction proceeds funds can support. Great! 2. I think the suggestion from the board about programming disbursement based in tranches (3-4 years period) is common practice among many donors and agencies and supports the overall need of fine-tunning processes and procedures as the mechanism kicks off. Having ways to identify when things might not be working and ways to tackle them and incorporate corrective measurements is key. Another benefit of this is that those tranches could be aligned with ICANN's strategic planning/focus. It will be a good idea to try to align those tranches with whatever cycles ICANN normally goes through, so that it is easier to be "in service of ICANN"s mission". 3. The evaluation of the mechanism itself and the projects it will support should also be sync and aligned with those programming cycles. Assessing impact on a 3 to 4 years framework makes a lot more sense than assessing projects only during their implementation period and final reporting requirements. Revisiting projects/organizations supported after a while and track how funds allocated supported their growth and development is a key part of assessing the real impact, and it is also a very good mechanism to build community, strengthen collaboration and have an understanding of the issues on the field. I just have a cautionary word of advice when defining those mechanisms, so that there is balance between the quantitative and the qualitative information collected. Anecdotal information about how "god" or "bad" something is will certainly not be enough, but focusing only on quantitative indicators is also an incomplete view of the work done. A key element on that evaluation/monitoring strategy is to identify the individuals that are behind projects /organizations supported. Most organization/projects that are successful are so because of the team behind them. Putting a face to the dollars invested, also helps to support leadership development, build capacity and a support network of peers. 4. Regarding the question about what is better... if funding few large projects or more smaller projects, I think that it will really depend on the areas of focus and the activities provided. There may be projects that will not be successful if they do not have the necessary budget commitment, so they might be at a disadvantage from the beginning. My suggestion will be that out of the first tranches to be explored, the mechanism allocates funding across both options, so that their effectiveness can also be compared -to a certain extent-. Kind regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary.

3 4

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] opening a point I believe we need to think about.
by Vanda Scartezini April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Thank you Sylvia Cadena, for your thoughts. Let me put something new over the table, for your considerations: During some discussion among former board members and the running board itself, due to some issues raised by Steve Crocker, I have thought in a point that I would like to share with all, regarding Auction amount of resources. The point raised by Steve and followed by other techy members, is related to challenges on security we are seeing will demand new software solutions, not yet available, and may be new technologies for DNS environment to guarantee ICANN long term mission. My point is: The lack of security in some software, nowadays working in the DNS infrastructure, can bring key problems to the DNS and hence, to ICANN itself. These discussions are gaining strength and any probable solution will not show up from one day to another to fix when some problems shows up. Suggestion: Why not separate some of auction money now, as we have thought in have some separate amount to Reserve, and why not by our own decision take part of this reserve to start to be used right now, to allow techy groups as staff inside ICANN + techy community to deeply study and suggest remedies to be developed in order to go ahead in the preventive side and had solution ready to avoid surprises? (Certainly this will demand some previous study related to what can be done? by whom? Estimated cost? When can be started? But this can be demanded to staff and other techy members of our community to present a proposal). There is no enough budget inside ICANN to software/solution development included into the normal budget and we believe this kind of project is quite urgent and cannot wait for auction regular process (from my view, more than 1 year from now on, due my own experience as granting $ and/or receiving grant $ - to have some of this project as approved one - even if possible - and have the gran $ in hands.). Furthermore, one of our requisites for future grants will not allow to cover such Key mission project, because will need to involve staff people. I put this over the table since I believe that “prevention” is better than “correction”. To think about. New solutions for our security will need to be developed as soon as possible. Can be a work together with big brands to reduce the cost, but as we understand, needs to be addressed and will take some time to get it done. In time: I am not an interested part other than be interested in our security, as ICANN long time community member and as internet user. Kisses to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. On 4/4/18, 21:10, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Sylvia Cadena" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of sylvia(a)apnic.net> wrote: Hi everyone, First of all apologies for the radio silence. I am sorry I was not able to join you in Puerto Rico and that I have missed the last couple of meetings, as they were at times were I was on planes or during a public holiday. I am glad to see progress on the discussions and would like to make a few comments. 1. I think we finally found the right wording. "In service of ICANN's mission" gives real meaning to what the auction proceeds funds can support. Great! 2. I think the suggestion from the board about programming disbursement based in tranches (3-4 years period) is common practice among many donors and agencies and supports the overall need of fine-tunning processes and procedures as the mechanism kicks off. Having ways to identify when things might not be working and ways to tackle them and incorporate corrective measurements is key. Another benefit of this is that those tranches could be aligned with ICANN's strategic planning/focus. It will be a good idea to try to align those tranches with whatever cycles ICANN normally goes through, so that it is easier to be "in service of ICANN"s mission". 3. The evaluation of the mechanism itself and the projects it will support should also be sync and aligned with those programming cycles. Assessing impact on a 3 to 4 years framework makes a lot more sense than assessing projects only during their implementation period and final reporting requirements. Revisiting projects/organizations supported after a while and track how funds allocated supported their growth and development is a key part of assessing the real impact, and it is also a very good mechanism to build community, strengthen collaboration and have an understanding of the issues on the field. I just have a cautionary word of advice when defining those mechanisms, so that there is balance between the quantitative and the qualitative information collected. Anecdotal information about how "god" or "bad" something is will certainly not be enough, but focusing only on quantitative indicators is also an incomplete view of the work done. A key element on that evaluation/monitoring strategy is to identify the individuals that are behind projects /organizations supported. Most organization/projects that are successful are so because of the team behind them. Putting a face to the dollars invested, also helps to support leadership development, build capacity and a support network of peers. 4. Regarding the question about what is better... if funding few large projects or more smaller projects, I think that it will really depend on the areas of focus and the activities provided. There may be projects that will not be successful if they do not have the necessary budget commitment, so they might be at a disadvantage from the beginning. My suggestion will be that out of the first tranches to be explored, the mechanism allocates funding across both options, so that their effectiveness can also be compared -to a certain extent-. Kind regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia(a)apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 * Love trees. Print only if necessary. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

3 2

Reminder - review updated work plan by Wednesday 4 April
by Marika Konings April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Reminder: Action item #2: CCWG members and participants to review proposed work plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are not able to commit to the work plan as outlined (see attached). From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 16:11 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Please take particular note of the following action item (see also this related message: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2018-March/000844.html) * Action item #2: CCWG members and participants to review proposed work plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are not able to commit to the work plan as outlined (see attached). Best regards, Marika ============= Notes and Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting on Thursday 29 March 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_…>. Roll Call: * Attendance will be taken from audio bridge and Webex * Remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and to mute your microphone to avoid background noise. SOI/DOI updates: * Erika Mann - DOI update forthcoming Exchange with external experts: Russell Haworth, Nominet Why did Nominet originally set up the Nominet Trust? * As a ccTLD, Nominet has been very much focused on public benefit. Decision made by the Board that in order to meet the public benefit goals, an independent organization should be created to take surplus and look at how to allocate grants via the trust to individual companies / organizations to do effectively public good with a technology bias. Could have done it at the time in-house or set up a trust - benefit of a trust, at least in the UK, there are some tax advantages. This may be distinct from ICANN situation as it deals with a lump sum, compared to regular fund allocation by Nominet. Trust set up in 2008 - relationship between Nominet and Nominet Trust, Nominet provided 3 million pounds per year. Board of Nominet Trust - board of trustees, a number of which could be from Nominet but independent so that it could develop its own strategy and decide how to allocate grants. Built itself out over the years to be the leading UK social tech investor. Started out providing grants to smaller organizations which had a big impact. Over the years, a number of mechanisms were developed that companies receiving investment need to measure social impact. Also working with larger charitable organizations. Question (Q): how do the foundation mission relates to the Nominet mission? Area of social tech is very broad, wanted to focus the trust on increasing digital skills, security and getting more people online. The more people online, the more people theoretically would want a .uk name, similarly to keeping secure name space, more vibrant online community. CCWG may have some limitations with regards to focus / mission due to fiduciary / legal requirements. Did Nominet have any similar limitations? Legal independence between Nominet and the Nominet Trust. * Nominet wants to evolve as an organization. Has reached a level of maturity - looking at diversifying revenue streams beyond domains. Goal is to positively impact society - connected, inclusive and secure are objectives. Why was decision made to bring the trust inside? Trust has done amazing things, Nominet has given 40 million pounds. Is leading tech investor / grant giver in the UK. Has bigger plans and ideas - Nominet Trust to evolve its strategy to impact the social technology space beyond what Nominet is focused on. They will now look into brining in other partners and growing the trust - likely to change branding / name. Nominet to look for skills in-house to appropriate funds and to impact society in line with its mission. Wanted to have more control how funds are appropriated which is more difficult if there are two separate legal structures place.   Q: Can Nominet also allocate funds outside of the UK or only inside of the UK? Principally looking at the UK, but obviously Internet is international so they may look at projects outside of the UK. Q: What are the lessons learned from the external trust that will help brining this in-house and brining it closer to the Nominet mission? Better insight into what types of projects have the most social impact, as well as type of organizations that were more successful. Experience build up in the team that was codified via a number of different applications and tools. Opportunity to learn from Nominet Trust impact and how to apply these to the three Nominet pillars. Brought in one of the Nominet Trust employees into Nominet to bring some of the knowledge and expertise in-house. Different financial instruments that can be considered - Trust only focused on grants, but Nominet can now also look at other debts instruments (equity, etc.) Mission for grant allocation should be the first step, especially if a separate organization is created. Should have cross-over with ICANN but equally have its own objectives, otherwise you will not be able to fairly allocate funds. Independent evaluators could ensure that no undue pressure is applied? Q: What have you learned in relation to fund allocation, evaluation? If core mission is not fund allocation, should outsourcing be an option? At the same time, cost may indicate that in-house is a better option? Two principal reasons for brining in-house: without having a separate board, Nominet can more closely control the dial-up and dial-down for how funds are allocated, also no separate infrastructure needed as it can be managed in-house; also allows Nominet the flexibility to allocate more or less to one of the pillars (quantum and cadence control). Q: how many grants can a Project Officer manage? How much does this number depend on the size of the individual grants? Nominet did 3 million pounds a year - overall 10 staff, 4-5 evaluating projects and probably looking at 20 grants a year. Around 500 applications a year, around 20 grants given of between 250,000 and below. Q: what was the main argument for insourcing the trust? 1) cost base of having a separate governance structure (note that Board of trustees was unpaid), 2) wanted to tie fund allocation to Nominet three pillars, 3) people in the Nominet organization felt connected to public benefit. Q: who makes final decision on fund allocation? In Nominet Trust, each grant was granted by the Trust Board. In new situation, below certain amount it would be CEO, above certain amount, Nominet Board. Working through a framework establishing criteria for fund allocation. In ICANN world this might be considered interference if it would have an ultimate say in fund allocation and ability to change recommendations of independent evaluators. Note that framework should set clear guidance in that regard. CCWG may need to review whether mechanisms being considered, if there needs to be an evaluation board in case conflict arises? Action item #1: CCWG to share any follow up questions it may have for Russell with the mailing list. Q: Can ICANN oversee / allocate funds outside the US? Other than purely operational and logistical considerations, there wouldn’t be any issues for ICANN to oversee/monitor grants anywhere in the world. Review of the revised Work plan: * See message circulated by Erika yesterday (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2018-March/000844.html) Based on the target of delivering an Initial Report by ICANN61, a revised work plan has been developed which would require weekly CCWG meetings. CCWG members and participants are expected to indicate if they are not in a position to commit to this revised work plan. Action item #2: CCWG members and participants to review proposed work plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are not able to commit to the work plan as outlined. Confirm next steps & next meeting * Next week’s meeting will be tentatively scheduled for next Thursday 5 April at 14.00 UTC, but whether the call will go ahead will depend on availability of EIB/European Commission experts. Their availability may not be confirmed until early next week. Staff will confirm as soon as possible whether the call will go ahead or not. 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…>.

4 4