Hi everyone, I would like to request the chairs to clarify the use of the surveys. If those are surveys, then they are supposed to be used to get an indication about what the groups leans towards. Not a voting procedure, as clearly warned on the decision-making section of our charter. If that is the case, I would like to request the chairs to clarify when a vote for consensus is required and how that consensus is expressed, so that we can inform our constituencies and express our agreement or disagreement accordingly. Now regarding Xavier’s presentation, I appreciate that he shared with the group how the funds are being invested at the moment. It might be my mistake, that I misunderstood what his presentation was actually going to be about, but I thought he was going to present what mechanisms are available in the US to disburse funds like this, that do not jeopardize the ICANN tax status. There are financial mechanisms to do that, and as they come with their own set of criteria, that can give us ideas about how to use the funds. I hope that part of the conversation can happen in the short term. Now, regarding the possibility of using a portion of the funds to replenish ICANN reserves I have a few points to make: 1. I recommend caution when discussing this in fix amounts. As far as I am aware, the .web lawsuit has not been settled yet (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_litigation-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=ssAuRPLfQop3MZxe0obpB2ceIyksM43zK9eUArV00sc&s=s9hzt60-MEjEyISU_FCoOKIGN-T5qdy-FLqNdQmkpbQ&e=>), so those 130M could be taking out of the auction proceeds fund, leaving only 100M there. If the group agrees to cover a specific amount, lets say the 12 months amount of 40M mentioned before, then the fund will only have 60M to allocate. Even worse, if the group agrees to the 80M. Please note that reserves mean money that will not be used hopefully for a very long period of time. I suggest to refer to percentages instead. 2. APNIC, for example has an 18 months reserve. The reserve was built over the years, following an investment plan and monitoring expenditure. Having reserves is a good thing, but what is better is to have the strategy behind it to maintain them without expecting a miracle to happen or to win the lotto. Jonathan’s point referring to the charter, and calling the group to discuss “whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds” is very important and puts a lot of things into perspective. So, what rules will the CCWG place for any other “project” that has such a long-term view (the reserves are to be there until something really bad happens and ICANN needs them) and for such a large amount? What safeguards need to be in place? What monitoring will be needed? So, for example, will the CCW be ok to fund other projects that are asking for USD 40M for 20 years? Jonathan mentioned some criteria to consider, which sound very reasonable, but in practice, that will mean assessing ICANN’s financial strategies as well as following up if their policies are well structured. Seems to be that will be a very complicated thing to do. As Carolina and others have expressed before, I do not agree with how the objectives have been regrouped. The survey clearly indicated that the group was in favor of the fund supporting multiple objectives instead of one. Regrouping goes actually against what the group indicated as a preference. Also, by editing the first objective and changing it from “Funds should focus on development, distribution and evolution of the Internet” to “benefit the development, distribution and evolution of the DNS” change its meaning and purpose. The Internet (technically) is not only the DNS. There are other related protocols that are also key and aligned with ICANN’s mission. Although I value the efforts by ICANN staff and the co-chairs to try to build a coherent narrative behind the funds allocation, I fully support the analysis that Daniel Dardailler shared a few days ago: DD wrote: // Without an Open TCP/IP stack, as delivered by IETF, no Open Web stack could have flourished. And without the Open Web, no DNS growth. We can't limit our funding to just the DNS layer, as it stands directly on other Open layers (IP, http) that are required to function properly (and evolve properly) for the DNS to succeed. I think Daniel’s analysis below about what might be in and what might be out is also a relevant input for the discussion. If we can go through a list like this and agree on what is included and what is not, that will certainly provide real clarity about what will be eligible and what will not. The only section of this list that I would like to argue against, is the one saying that the fund should not support the app/platform/content layer as there might be many issues around this, that could be done on this layer that support the objectives discussed on the survey. I presented one such example on my survey responses “A coalition of organizations working on remote participation tools and content receive a long-term grant to support localization efforts for 7 local languages not covered under the existing ICANN’s framework (Bahasa, Tagalog, Dutch, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Urdu). This encourages local and national conversations that feed into the regional and global processes.” DD wrote: // - Not inclusive of the physical layer (however open is can be, too far from ICANN mission, and not clear it needs funding) - Inclusive of the transport and presentation layer (TCP/IP, Web, directly linked to DNS operations, and needs funding) - Inclusive of the addressing layer (IPv6, DNS, it's ICANN core activities, so not clear to me it needs funding since ICANN already has a healthy budget without the auctions. Isn't DNS capacity building part of ICANN responsibilities already ?) - Not inclusive of the app/platform/content layer (too far from ICANN mission, although it needs funding too) - Inclusive of the policy layer (shutdown, net neutrality, etc., even though I agree with others that these are very sensitive topics that would position ICANN on a difficult path vs. some of its constituencies, e.g. the GAC, or telco/DNS players).” Regards, Sylvia ———— ** ISIF Asia call for grants proposals and award nominations is open until 30 August (midnight UTC) www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> - Get started and submit your application! ** Sylvia Cadena | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | +10 GMT Brisbane, Australia | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/>