- Ccwg-auctionproceeds - lists.icann.org

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

Updated Attendance attachment, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland March 30, 2018

March 30, 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, 29 March 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-29mar18-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/xSi8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> 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

Attendance, Recording & WebEx Chat from CCWG Auction Proceeds call on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 14:00 UTC.
by Julie Bisland March 29, 2018

March 29, 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, 29 March 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-29mar18-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/xSi8B 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 March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

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<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

(no subject)
by 喬敬 March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei

1 0

Notes and action items
by Marika Konings March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached some high-level notes from the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting that took place on Sunday 11 March at ICANN61. You are encouraged to review the recording / transcript of the meeting for the full record (see https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691) The next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 29 March at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting – Sunday 11 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_…>. Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%201…) * Working closely together with Board liaison to minimize risk of rejection of eventual recommendations * Legal and fiduciary constraints will need to be factored into any recommendations that the CCWG puts forward Board Liaison Input Board committed to be proactive but doesn’t want to be proscriptive Board discussed today what it would expect to see back. Preliminary thoughts that Board has, not intended to be proscriptive. Fiduciary obligations and Board to employ due diligence when it comes to assets as well as mechanism used to allocate auction proceeds. Preliminary principles: • Tranches in a period of years, not all at once (e.g. 3-4 year period) to make sure that mechanisms are in place and working properly. May consider max. amount for which board needs to be get involved, but not decided yet. • Proceeds need to be used in service of the ICANN mission. ‘In service” provides some flexibility, but it is not wide open either. Not used for operational purposes. • Mechanism needs to be efficient and effective. Should encompass the expertise and scale necessary to minimize overhead and to maximize the impact. • The mechanism has to be capable of acting globally, evaluate proposals from around the world, and administer and oversee on a global level. • The mechanism needs to be accountable - need to have disbursement based on written timelines that establish clear milestones for release and accountability for grant recipients. • Mechanism needs to have processes in place to evaluate and quantify the impact of projects - fit for purpose, impact measurement. • ICANN needs to have established processes to evaluate the mechanism and its effectiveness • Mechanism needs to ensure that we can be transparent with the community and applicants with regards to status of various projects, evaluation criteria, how funds are used, and these are achieving their goals. Questions: * Not for operational purposes used for ICANN, but there will be an operational cost to disbursing. The latter would come out of the auction proceeds. * On the topic of alignment with the ICANN Mission, since the new bylaws expressly made content and services using domain names, would projects that e.g. promote content or control of content be considered against the ICANN mission? See some of the examples that the Board recently provided. Content control is not within ICANN’s mission so it would be difficult to see how any project focusing on content would be in service of the mission. * Once you know the duration, you may also deduct spending per project. Many ways to disburse the funds. * One decision to consider is whether there will be a few substantial projects funded that make a tangible difference, or whether it will be potentially hundreds of small projects that might have very local impact. Exchange of views with experts * Update provided on the status of outreach to external experts (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%201…) * See input provided by Sam & Xavier. General reflection: some of the questions may need more specifics in order to provide helpful answers. ICANN will always have an obligation to exercise its oversight and respect its fiduciary duties. Q & A * SEVF mentioned as an example for how auction proceeds could be invested and give continued returns. Out of scope for CCWG to consider venture funds, should be moved to bottom of list. * Coordination should be important feature of any mechanism chosen. Would appreciate further input on that. Agreement and details on division of roles & responsibilities is also key. * Input provided seems to support favoring model #1. Don’t judge too early - need to make sure that all external input is reviewed and considered. * Community involvement / ICANN is important, especially when you look at allocation of auction proceeds and the need for those to be in service of the mission. Difficult to see how external evaluations with no relationship to ICANN would be able to make a definite assessment. * To reduce overhead / staff costs, you may need to look into increasing funds allocated per project. Nominet input * Nominet trust was set up over 10 years ago to put excess funds to good use. Appropriate funds on a yearly basis, which resulted in to tax benefit. Managed independently by a Board of trustees. Nominet did not sit on the Board of trustees but did provide oversight to ensure good corporate governance. Leading social tech fund in the UK. Are now re-evaluation how to deliver public benefit - trust now ready for attracting external investors. Nominet now takes the public benefit approach in-house - hiring a team to direct the profits accordingly. Part of the reason for bringing it in house is because Nominet purpose, to be able to be more directive how to support Nominet objectives. Key question is what is the purpose? Could result in putting it in different posts, for example. What is the ambition? Questions: what were the decisions that led to creating the trust and what guided the decision to spin of the trust and bring the public benefit work into Nominet? Initially no expertise in-house so trust was deemed best approach. Now after many years of experience able to carry out this role in-house and make sure that profits are directed in line with Nominet’s objective. Action item: Invite Nominet to join future new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting to provide further insights and allow for additional Q & A. Next meeting Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 29 March at 14.00 UTC. The co-chairs expect to share a revised timeline for CCWG consideration shortly. 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-…>.

5 5

proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting (Thu, 29 March @14:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting, scheduled for Thursday 29 March at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Joke Braeken Proposed Agenda for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting 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. Exchange with external experts (Russell Haworth, Nominet) (See: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Questions+for+external+experts) 1. Review of the Work Plan (See: e-mail sent out by co-chair Erika Mann, and included in attachment) 1. Confirm next steps & next meeting Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+… 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

IMPORTANT - Thursday, March 29, call - updated work plan
by Erika Mann March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

> > Dear All - > Following our meeting at ICANN61, the leadership team took the opportunity to review the work plan and updated it in line with our proposed objective of publishing an Initial Report for community consideration by ICANN62, followed by a Final Report by ICANN63. > We are conscious that this is an ambitious target which will require time and commitment of everyone involved, especially the Chartering Organizations appointed members. As such, we would like to request you review the attached work plan carefully and indicate on or off list if you are NOT able to commit to this plan. > Please note that the work plan foresees an increase in call frequency to once a week and will require preparation and review of relevant materials, but if everyone is willing to work together on this, we should be able to meet our set targets. > Please remember that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 26 January at 14.00 UTC. Kind regards, Erika and Ching > >

1 1