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_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=>. Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011...) * 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-%2011...) * 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@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-e...>.
Hello Marika, all as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way. I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and target a particular option. In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and here's my rationales: - ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final payment - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, evaluation committees, etc) - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch" - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is already used/pushed to do better and better. I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO). Talk to you on Thursday. Thanks. On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
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 [1]). 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 [2]._
Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011... [3])
* 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-%2011... [3]) * 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@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691 [2] 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= [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2 [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [5] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
How are we connecting to the call today, Adobe or what? Stephanie Perrin On 2018-03-27 13:39, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
Hello Marika, all
as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way.
I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and target a particular option.
In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and here's my rationales:
- ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final payment - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, evaluation committees, etc) - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch" - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is already used/pushed to do better and better.
I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO).
Talk to you on Thursday.
Thanks.
On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
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 [1]). 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 [2]._
Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011...
[3])
* 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-%2011...
[3]) * 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@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691 [2] 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=
[4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [5] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Stephanie - we're not using Adobe. I resend Julie's invite with the new call-in details few minutes ago. Please check! Erika On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
How are we connecting to the call today, Adobe or what?
Stephanie Perrin On 2018-03-27 13:39, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
Hello Marika, all
as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way.
I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and target a particular option.
In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and here's my rationales:
- ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final payment - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, evaluation committees, etc) - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch" - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is already used/pushed to do better and better.
I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO).
Talk to you on Thursday.
Thanks.
On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
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 [1]). 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 [2]._
Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/ CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version= 1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2 [3])
* 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-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version= 1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2 [3]) * 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@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691 [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir- 9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyq dj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e= [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/ CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version= 1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2 [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [5] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/ presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Please see the information that has just been circulated by Julie Bisland from the following address for call and login details: Ntfy-ccwg-auctionproceeds. Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 07:08 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items Stephanie - we're not using Adobe. I resend Julie's invite with the new call-in details few minutes ago. Please check! Erika On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: How are we connecting to the call today, Adobe or what? Stephanie Perrin On 2018-03-27 13:39, Daniel Dardailler wrote: Hello Marika, all as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way. I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and target a particular option. In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and here's my rationales: - ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final payment - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, evaluation committees, etc) - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch" - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is already used/pushed to do better and better. I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO). Talk to you on Thursday. Thanks. On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote: 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[61.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_meetings_647691&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=m3Dldi6OygkbpA67Bqe9FM4iPHdqIkHxIAXF4DNlRME&e=> [1]). 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=uO3XrJeb8rJ4WibJr5aUbVSzjhwlJobf_U47VbQAjjo&e=> [2]._ Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_79431895_CCWG-2520AP-2520-2D-252011-2520March-25202018-2520updated.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1520888233000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=hoHTz4s-aEf5_gkBYfIZpGImor8bpNmLVcsbJ7SfAV0&e=> [3]) * 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-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_79431895_CCWG-2520AP-2520-2D-252011-2520March-25202018-2520updated.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1520888233000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=hoHTz4s-aEf5_gkBYfIZpGImor8bpNmLVcsbJ7SfAV0&e=> [3]) * 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@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 [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _ Links: ------ [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691[61.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_meetings_647691&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=m3Dldi6OygkbpA67Bqe9FM4iPHdqIkHxIAXF4DNlRME&e=> [2] 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= [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_79431895_CCWG-2520AP-2520-2D-252011-2520March-25202018-2520updated.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26amp-3BmodificationDate-3D1520888233000-26amp-3Bapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=jsiG84ONo6_UIJUNXjYU5CZ8MRZoVzYzkZERShC8jWs&e=> [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=-xivwoywYE78UHOe-nCz4TdSZr3EKBwhpk_GCQtKbzA&e=> [5] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=mosCdjTbbTQRBdP5yPfB4QAtYQXbqjLw1_b0pPU3P8M&s=hk2WI5xV8pmkg_6z9gfUd7Bey6uEy2cKoFiNNxU0n1c&e=> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
+1 Daniel This was actually my response to the survey that was sent at the early stages of this working group -----Original Message----- From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:39 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items Hello Marika, all as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way. I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and target a particular option. In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and here's my rationales: - ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final payment - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, evaluation committees, etc) - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch" - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is already used/pushed to do better and better. I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO). Talk to you on Thursday. Thanks. On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
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 [1]). 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 [2]._
Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20 -%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=152088 8233000&api=v2 [3])
* 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 -%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=152088 8233000&api=v2 [3]) * 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@icann.org _
_ _
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [4] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
Links: ------ [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691 [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o rg_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4 I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo 6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT 71X4cBhx3axkEY&e= [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20 -%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=15 20888233000&api=v2 [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso [5] http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/po licy-efforts.htm#newcomers _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dardailler -
Erika Mann -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Marika Konings -
Stephanie Perrin