April 2018 - Ccwg-auctionproceeds

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