Reminder, please provide your input by Monday 7 May at the latest. So far only one person has provided suggestions for the preamble. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:12 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC. 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-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD-5FX-2DLGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=giRI2EGm7NCqDz0m80z9T-sl83AWgQUOJ8Zb2unJ9HQ&s=i7Lv_Vjngy_tvcRuXcWZ4nTjJmg8Ne8dWMqtpfdvc6I&e=>. 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-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_16YqlNWqQxHX-2Dva0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=giRI2EGm7NCqDz0m80z9T-sl83AWgQUOJ8Zb2unJ9HQ&s=JaC1MzFrLy7AxP5dx2FhIS393GFGickLdIr-qj_NvdY&e=>. 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@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 17:15 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@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_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>. 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_BSW8B&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=_yYCXQ7V5fbxqX_5dQUnotA95CYa2hQgmCRPrP7dw1I&s=UUsceCGBf-ja1dMzLECUedCuNeNv9JPlrwYoZuXW9_c&e=>) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=8nMIfNYVK2n_WF7wQcAyodtErFawAJnfd41Qpis6Df0&e=> 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_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=yg6wy7unhj4Ge6wTGuMAiembs52aORNpG6EnMxhvRp0&e=> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=csaGugkE5Eo4-Owan2aKfkf5Ntn1k4ukf5Pv2Qnww1k&e=>