Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period. Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today. Erika On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct. I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.

Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we ------------------------------ *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM *To:* John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

...

BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.

I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.

I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be inherently conflicted.

R's, John

Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.

Alan

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Thanks Marika, really appreciate the hard work that went into this. Thanks Erika for including that sentence about the board letter that was received recently, I think it was the best way forward. As for comments about the board letter, I would like to share these: * As the SO/AC’s are legally registered organizations it will not be possible for them to pass a due diligence review for grant allocation. What normally happens in this type of cases is that a legal entity submits a proposal on behalf of such group, offering “secretariat support” which means they will be ones whose capacity is checked to receive and manage a grant, produce reports, etc. If the mechanism allows for not-legally registered bodies/entities to apply (and be selected for funding allocation) then a lot of work has to be done so that the selected recipient is able to successfully complete the due diligence process. It is not impossible, but the alternative path for that group to be able to demonstrate that they have the capacity to conduct the work, manage the funds and produce reports has to be designed and communicated so that it is not seeing as a barrier for participation. That might include for example, letters of commitment from members of the group to confirm what/how they are supporting the work and what skills they have (for example someone acting as project manager, someone else as treasurer/financial officer, etc), accepting financial statements instead of audit reports (as not every organization gets audited), and other alternative mechanisms. Due diligence is a very important part of the process, but one has to remain focus on what the real objective is: is allocate the grants to the best possible proposals, not to the organizations that can pass the due diligence. Being able to respond to the reality of the community supported is a really important part of being able to support the best projects/ideas. For example, some grants programs allow to include the costs of completing a legal registration for a community group selected, as part of the grant allocation. That leaves a long-term benefit for the community and allows for good ideas to be discussed/selected, even if they don’t fit all the criteria for grant allocation in the first place. * This group and the drafting team before touched on selection mechanisms (committees, panels, etc) in the past, although probably without enough detail. I don’t think the board comment about an independent panel is new, but there are still quite a few details for this group to discuss on that regard (membership, appointment, terms, rotation). I am confused by the way the last part of the letter is worded, about what the board will or will not confirm, and what will happen then. If the board assess the “slate of successful applicants” and considers that the panel did not follow the process, then the whole selection might be thrown away. I don’t think that will be a fair way to do that, as applications were assessed individually, so it might be the case that some rules were not fully followed for one, and 10 projects are listed, and then. the other 9 projects are not selected and there will be a cast of doubt in each and everyone of the other 9 projects and also on the whole committee/panel. What will be the acceptable reasons for the board to “reject” a project already recommended by the committee/panel really needs to be considered, as well as how is that communicated to the community. To be honest I would rather have the board sending a question back to the CCWG about what might be the recommendations from the CCWG about a selection process/committee/panel to allow the discussions to flow, instead of getting framed already. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 at 8:12 am To: "erika@erikamann.com" <erika@erikamann.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP Dear All, Please note that the public comment forum is now live at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018.... Best regards, Marika From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:01 AM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period. Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today. Erika On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct. I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels. Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.

I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.

I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be inherently conflicted.

R's, John

Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply. Alan _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Marika, Thanks! Personally, I’ll be interested in hearing what the community comments are related to Section 4.1 and 4.2. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Cel/Tel +1 416 893 0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra On 8 Oct 2018, at 18:11, Marika Konings wrote:

Dear All,

Please note that the public comment forum is now live at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018....

Best regards,

Marika

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:01 AM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

Thank you all for your comments and for the support in allowing us to move forward with our agreed approach. I noted all the comments and I expect us to have a first exchange about some of the topics raised in Barcelona. And, yes, we will have to come back to these questions after the public comment period.

Hi Marika, Emily, Joke - please let us know when the draft report/recommendations is published today.

Erika

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: AH, John, thanks for that important clarification. You are quite correct. I was thinking more "minimalistic", as constituencies, sub levels.

Alan's comments -- I think that is in line with my perspective, Alan. I am checking back with others from the CSG participants, but as this is not urgent, as noted, I think we ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:13 PM To: John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP

At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

...

BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN.

I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs.

I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be inherently conflicted.

R's, John

Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply.

Alan

_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

With apologies that I am not able to attend today's meeting, regarding the discussion of entity status, I wanted to remind the CCWG of the constraints that we identified in the Legal & Fiduciary Constraints memo developed early in this process, which specifies some objective legal requirements to support grant making. The relevant sections are copied below: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N... a. Considerations for grants to organizations When providing grants to another 501(c)(3) organization that operates as a public charitable organization, once alignment is confirmed to ICANN’s mission, the level of administrative needs to confirm the entity is minimal. This is in contrast to a for-profit organization, or another form of organization that is not recognized as equivalent to a 501(c)(3). If ICANN were directed to make grants to a for-profit entity, for example, or an IGO, NGO, or a foreign non-profit, the administrative burden on ICANN to assure compliance with its obligations rise. However, reliance on 501(c)(3) status alone as a demonstration of eligibility would serve to exclude almost any foreign entity from being eligible to receive a portion of the auction proceeds. Requiring a specific U.S.-based tax status is not a desirable or acceptable eligibility requirement. This is not necessary. To the extent that the auction proceeds are requested to financially support an organization that does not have 501(c)(3) status, due diligence to ensure that only incidental private benefits will result (such as payment of reasonable employment salaries) will be required prior to providing that support. That due diligence could include, for example, seeking a clear description of the public benefits that will be generated by the activity, and the circumstances and means through which those benefits are expected to be achieved. It could include seeking of financial data or other information that is appropriate in the circumstance. There are other ways to establish eligibility as well. foreign non-profits or NGOs are eligible to obtain affidavits or opinions of counsel that they operate as an equivalent of a 501(c)(3) public charity. With the proper documentation, ICANN may rely on that affidavit or opinion to demonstrate the public benefit and lack of private benefit, therefore not needing to engage in detailed due diligence. The DT could consider whether the Charter should include any guidance to the CCWG on issues of prioritizing potential recipients based on the resources that would be needed to evaluate their eligibility based on the private benefit restriction. The CCWG could still consider this item even if not specified in its Charter. b. Recommended Prohibition on Grants to Individuals The prohibition on private benefit typically results in an exclusion of grants/payment of funds directly to individuals, because there is little possibility of performing the proper review over the use of those funds to make sure that they went towards service of ICANN’s charitable purpose, as opposed to enriching the individual. This does not mean that the funds cannot be provided to an organization that provides direct services to individuals, but for the purposes of developing eligibility criteria, we recommend that a restriction be included that prohibits ICANN from providing individual grants. ____ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 ________________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 1:35 PM To: Alan Greenberg; John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP I also believe nothing will be impede AC/SOs to apply if compliant with the requisites. They are not departments/ divisions of ICANN. What will refrain the applicant is the involvement of any of us working in the Auction proceeds as per our conflict of interest statement. 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 10/7/18, 16:26, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >>BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying >>re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of >>the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN. > >I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for >money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO >asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs. > >I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be >inherently conflicted. > >R's, >John Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply. Alan _______________________________________________ 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

Not that I can replace Sam, but I will be attending most of the meeting and will help if I can. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:44 PM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP Received and noted. Thank you Sam, we will miss you. Erika Erika Mann Co-Chair CCWG AP erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote: With apologies that I am not able to attend today's meeting, regarding the discussion of entity status, I wanted to remind the CCWG of the constraints that we identified in the Legal & Fiduciary Constraints memo developed early in this process, which specifies some objective legal requirements to support grant making. The relevant sections are copied below: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N... a. Considerations for grants to organizations When providing grants to another 501(c)(3) organization that operates as a public charitable organization, once alignment is confirmed to ICANN’s mission, the level of administrative needs to confirm the entity is minimal. This is in contrast to a for-profit organization, or another form of organization that is not recognized as equivalent to a 501(c)(3). If ICANN were directed to make grants to a for-profit entity, for example, or an IGO, NGO, or a foreign non-profit, the administrative burden on ICANN to assure compliance with its obligations rise. However, reliance on 501(c)(3) status alone as a demonstration of eligibility would serve to exclude almost any foreign entity from being eligible to receive a portion of the auction proceeds. Requiring a specific U.S.-based tax status is not a desirable or acceptable eligibility requirement. This is not necessary. To the extent that the auction proceeds are requested to financially support an organization that does not have 501(c)(3) status, due diligence to ensure that only incidental private benefits will result (such as payment of reasonable employment salaries) will be required prior to providing that support. That due diligence could include, for example, seeking a clear description of the public benefits that will be generated by the activity, and the circumstances and means through which those benefits are expected to be achieved. It could include seeking of financial data or other information that is appropriate in the circumstance. There are other ways to establish eligibility as well. foreign non-profits or NGOs are eligible to obtain affidavits or opinions of counsel that they operate as an equivalent of a 501(c)(3) public charity. With the proper documentation, ICANN may rely on that affidavit or opinion to demonstrate the public benefit and lack of private benefit, therefore not needing to engage in detailed due diligence. The DT could consider whether the Charter should include any guidance to the CCWG on issues of prioritizing potential recipients based on the resources that would be needed to evaluate their eligibility based on the private benefit restriction. The CCWG could still consider this item even if not specified in its Charter. b. Recommended Prohibition on Grants to Individuals The prohibition on private benefit typically results in an exclusion of grants/payment of funds directly to individuals, because there is little possibility of performing the proper review over the use of those funds to make sure that they went towards service of ICANN’s charitable purpose, as opposed to enriching the individual. This does not mean that the funds cannot be provided to an organization that provides direct services to individuals, but for the purposes of developing eligibility criteria, we recommend that a restriction be included that prohibits ICANN from providing individual grants. ____ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 ________________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 1:35 PM To: Alan Greenberg; John R. Levine; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Request for input from ICANN Board - CCWG-AP I also believe nothing will be impede AC/SOs to apply if compliant with the requisites. They are not departments/ divisions of ICANN. What will refrain the applicant is the involvement of any of us working in the Auction proceeds as per our conflict of interest statement. 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 10/7/18, 16:26, "Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 07/10/2018 11:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >>BUT, For later discussion : am not sure what Bd thinks it is saying >>re whether or what funding an SO/AC community can apply. NONE of >>the SO/AC/constituencies are legally affiliated w ICANN. > >I believe the question is whether the SO or AC itself could ask for >money, e.g., the SSAC asks for money to study some security issue or the GNSO >asks for money for some study about perceptions of new TLDs. > >I don't think anyone considers the members of an SO or AC to be >inherently conflicted. > >R's, >John Correct. An AC, SO or SO Council is a creature of the ICANN Bylaws and if it were to apply, it is really ICANN applying. But and ALS for the ALAC or member of the GNSO (through one of its constituent parts), or a ccTLD, could apply. Alan _______________________________________________ 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