Reminder: CCWG members are requested to review the proposed responses to the charter questions and provide input to questions identified by 9 July 2018: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Kbjnnflt0h5ZVkP57s2nP0trJyQCcuTfdWjzbgwc7k/edit.

To facilitate your review, hereby the outstanding items staff identified and shared during the last CCWG meeting:

• Charter Question 3 - What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that the creation of the framework, as well as its execution and operation, respect the legal and fiduciary constraints that have been outlined in this memo?
  • Need to determine whether additional/different safeguards need to be put in place at the project oversight level. See also charter question #9.
  • Mechanism 1: Who would be responsible for the oversight? And how could a separation from ICANN be arranged to avoid capture of funds for ICANN ORG related purposes? What safeguards will the department have when policies and procedures to manage it are being designed by ICANN?
• Charter Question 5 - What conflict of interest provisions and procedures need to be put in place as part of this framework for fund allocations?
  • For Mechanisms 1-3, what is the model for separation of staff?
  • For Mechanisms 2-3, how can the department benefit from services / expertise inside of ICANN Org and how are those services / expertise then paid for, is this also expected to be funded from auction proceeds?
  • Do we need a description of goals and objectives the fund should support? Or is the mission driven environment, in combination with bylaws, public interest, etc, sufficient?
  • if we agree to define goals and objectives, how do we want to do this?
• Charter Question 11 - Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework following the completion of the CCWGs work and implementation of the framework should changes occur that affect the original recommendations (for example, changes to legal and fiduciary requirements and/or changes to ICANN’s mission)?
  • What type of review mechanism should be put in place to carry out such a review – is this part of the oversight provided by ICANN Org / Board or is a separate process / mechanism needed? Is the process / mechanism needed different depending on the mechanism chosen?
    • Comment: ICANN org or Board would need the ability to conduct sufficient level of review in order to meet fiduciary responsibilities.
• Charter Question 8 - What aspects should be considered to determine an appropriate level of overhead that supports the principles outlined in this charter?
  • Need to be specific here about what is meant with overhead – overhead for running the mechanism/program, or overhead for the administration of projects, or both?
• Charter Question 9 - What is the governance framework that should be followed to guide distribution of the proceeds? The issues addressed by a governance framework
  • How may the implementation of the requirements differ between the different mechanisms?
  • How might governance committees, steering committees, oversight councils, or advisory boards mentioned by experts play into each model?
  • For Mechanism 2, what is the allocation of responsibility in this model between ICANN and collaborating organizations?
    • Comment: Under 2, ICANN handles grantmaking in-house (i.e. money to fund applicant wiring from ICANN-managed bank account) while Under 4, existing charitable org handles fund distribution (with ICANN's supervision; money to fund applicant wiring from external-org bank account).
  • For Mechanism 3-4, what would this look like in practice when working with an established entity? How closely would ICANN need to be involved in elements of the governance framework listed above. Which elements CAN be delegated? 
• Charter Question 10 - To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds?
  • Could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, such as an SO or AC, be an applicant under any circumstances? CCWG may need to confirm with ICANN Org/Board if this may be possible.
    • Comment: I have the impression that the Board (perhaps Asha or Becky) mentioned that ICANN would never be in the position as a fund applicant.

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.