Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC * Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates * Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? * Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates * See notes and action items from that meeting * A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today * Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) * See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list * Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. * Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. * What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? * What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. * May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. * Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. * Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. * How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. * Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) * Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. * Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) * See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. * Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. * Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. * More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. * Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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...>.
Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items:
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
*Action item* *#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_CWGONGAP_2018-2BMeetings&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=g5e8GKeABRNdcde9uTwS2jyUXaM3FeYdtkHYan3sEag&s=KrGNwJFFA-j2_RmHTliCAvxXuWCjy3mobJPtd5lz4K8&e=>_./
1. Roll Call
* Attendance will be taken from AC * Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes
2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
* Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? * Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate
3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
* See notes and action items from that meeting * A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today * Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc.
4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly)
* See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list * Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. * Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. * What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? * What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. * May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. * Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. * Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. * How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. * Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting.
*Action item #1*: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list.
5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached)
* Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. * Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process.
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
* See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. * Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. * Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. * More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. * Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made.
*Action item* *#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
*/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...>. /
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Carolina Caeiro *Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects /www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry/
Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net<http://www.lacnic.net> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636679691718742459&sdata=DXeAeuGYy897SH8oZK%2FmGa9EX7%2BsJdCaez8Cz77cPQM%3D&reserved=0> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacnic....> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
Agree that there is no rule based on exceptions but if will be other organization than ICANN we shall rule that the condition is to state beforehand they are able to support all countries or list those not supported and their reasons. But to make it more easy as a general rule we can allow projects to be in consortium with two or more countries and the leader organization will respond for all. Kisses 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. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 17:26 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call • Attendance will be taken from AC • Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates • Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? • Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates • See notes and action items from that meeting • A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today • Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) • See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list • Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. • Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. • What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? • What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. • May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. • Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. • Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. • How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. • Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) • Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. • Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) • See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. • Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. • Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. • More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. • Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636679691718742459&sdata=DXeAeuGYy897SH8oZK%2FmGa9EX7%2BsJdCaez8Cz77cPQM%3D&reserved=0> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacnic....> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
It is not up to the CCWG-AP to override any legal requirements, right? We are taking on implementation issues that are out of our scope, I believe. We can "note" issues/concerns that we have questions about, but I doubt that the CCWG is "ruling". We are perhaps noting concerns? M ________________________________ From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:40 PM To: Marilyn Cade; Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Agree that there is no rule based on exceptions but if will be other organization than ICANN we shall rule that the condition is to state beforehand they are able to support all countries or list those not supported and their reasons. But to make it more easy as a general rule we can allow projects to be in consortium with two or more countries and the leader organization will respond for all. Kisses 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. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 17:26 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>, Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net>, "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call • Attendance will be taken from AC • Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates • Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? • Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates • See notes and action items from that meeting • A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today • Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) • See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list • Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. • Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. • What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? • What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. • May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. • Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. • Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. • How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. • Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) • Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. • Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) • See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. • Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. • Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. • More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. • Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636679691718742459&sdata=DXeAeuGYy897SH8oZK%2FmGa9EX7%2BsJdCaez8Cz77cPQM%3D&reserved=0> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacnic....> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared".
In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting.
I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG.
Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception.
------------------------------ *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM *To:* Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not.
*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. *
*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> *Date: *Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear Marika and all,
As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions:
1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3.
2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing.
Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US.
Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4.
In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline.
Many thanks,
Carolina
El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items:
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
*Action item* *#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__community.icann.org_display_CWGONGAP_2018-2BMeetings%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3D7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM%26m%3Dg5e8GKeABRNdcde9uTwS2jyUXaM3FeYdtkHYan3sEag%26s%3DKrGNwJFFA-j2_RmHTliCAvxXuWCjy3mobJPtd5lz4K8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636679691718742459&sdata=g0h%2FCxKC515TDpB7T%2BdYHw%2FDzkGgD9g27pNGGMUIV2s%3D&reserved=0>.*
1. Roll Call
· Attendance will be taken from AC
· Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes
2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
· Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods?
· Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate
3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
· See notes and action items from that meeting
· A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today
· Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc.
4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly)
· See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list
· Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report.
· Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG.
· What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions?
· What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation.
· May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these.
· Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources.
· Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations.
· How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report.
· Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting.
*Action item #1*: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list.
5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached)
· Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful.
· Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process.
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
· See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared.
· Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all.
· Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere.
· More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll.
· Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made.
*Action item* *#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flearn.icann...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>. *
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>
-- Carolina Caeiro
*Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects
*www.lacnic.net <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacnic.net&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636679691718742459&sdata=LihhELb%2F8kudqMYGGPJz0nzr2f7uTOjZCWJhl7hI8fQ%3D&reserved=0>* * Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry*
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. 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 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Sylvia,
I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law...
Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one.
I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization.
The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government.
I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding.
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, <https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> 4101 Australia <https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> | 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 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am *To: *Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade < marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
In response to Maureen’s question below (*Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), **the answer is*:
ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3).
In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-% 20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and% 20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate= 1466697425000&api=v2), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible.
However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant.
—
Samantha Eisner
Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...>
Los Angeles, California 90094 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...>
USA <https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...>
Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM *To: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective.
Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared".
In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting.
I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG.
Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ------------------------------
*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM *To:* Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not.
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> *Date: *Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear Marika and all,
As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions:
1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3.
2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing.
Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US.
Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4.
In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline.
Many thanks,
Carolina
El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items:
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
*Action item#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fcommunity.icann.org-5Fdisplay-5FCWGONGAP-5F2018-2D2BMeetings-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM-2526r-253D7-5FPQAir-2D9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM-2526m-253Dg5e8GKeABRNdcde9uTwS2jyUXaM3FeYdtkHYan3sEag-2526s-253DKrGNwJFFA-2Dj2-5FRmHTliCAvxXuWCjy3mobJPtd5lz4K8-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636679691718742459-26sdata-3Dg0h-252FCxKC515TDpB7T-252BdYHw-252FDzkGgD9g27pNGGMUIV2s-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=VqWxPnFVIUmWQHGZJxDFDgVJn47445frtXeBi7QYCGc&s=gZsBHxDYfdX06X9LCkuhc2yI34ZosB6p9OFTguSsigY&e=>* *.*
1. Roll Call
· Attendance will be taken from AC
· Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes
2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
· Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods?
· Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate
3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
· See notes and action items from that meeting
· A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today
· Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc.
4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly)
· See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list
· Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report.
· Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG.
· What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions?
· What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation.
· May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these.
· Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources.
· Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations.
· How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report.
· Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting.
*Action item #1*: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list.
5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached)
· Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful.
· Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process.
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
· See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared.
· Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all.
· Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere.
· More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll.
· Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made.
*Action item#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. *
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>
-- Carolina Caeiro
*Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects
*www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lacnic.net-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636679691718742459-26sdata-3DLihhELb-252F8kudqMYGGPJz0nzr2f7uTOjZCWJhl7hI8fQ-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=VqWxPnFVIUmWQHGZJxDFDgVJn47445frtXeBi7QYCGc&s=6IJWDeAEoG-T6V8KA0GwyauGTz7x4CZPJqFbT588K88&e=>* * Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry*
_______________________________________________ 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
In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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,<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> 4101 Australia<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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,<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> 4101 Australia<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
James, I am very confused here about the concerns you are raising. Various governments and other development programs fund entities that deal with this issue, and do make grants for parties that do good work inside a country that has a sanction, but the group is not within that country. think for instance about Save the Children. Or Empretec. Of course, there are sanction issues that ICANN has to respect. BUT, granting funds to an entity that brings Internet to refugees in a country that has sanctions hardly sounds like something you would want to oppose -- the applicant might be an NGO not in that sanction country but serves such countries. Are you perhaps thinking we cannot consider such examples? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:18 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.foundation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=kT3w3BNUjOg6gVQM3y0cqT12xkjohwEdxuR5LWW6H0s%3D&reserved=0> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isif.asia&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=T1KpeTEyhRlqG8daG8xL%2FbgEbNw9FQVrnjp4QI1b61c%3D&reserved=0> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> 4101 Australia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F58730906%2FMay%25202016%2520-%2520Note%2520to%2520Auction%2520Proceeds%2520Charter%2520DT%2520re%2520legal%2520and%2520fiduciary%2520principles-UPDATED.doc%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1466697425000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=nTCzKaXrfh7OXXu34P2m%2BNzuhnC5%2Fy9CJgvnCrNQOIQ%3D&reserved=0>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> USA<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215625055810&sdata=1SX2ly2kIZ098i%2B%2BqPU%2BwnF%2B1%2BjvHop0mtqCd0KXhVY%3D&reserved=0>
I am saying that ICANN is not in the normal situation of a grant making organisation, and as such may be restricted in some small areas (Such as by sanctions) in the form it can make the grant making. For example it would be to me legally grey to pass a parcel of funding to a third party to distribute in a manner that may not align with the ICANN bylaws or the restrictions made by applicable law to ICANN. This is where I feel we are too close to implementation issues as this will be a decision that can only be made on a case by case basis and will depend on the current sanctions list at the time of application etc etc and many other point in time variables. -James On 25 Jul 2018, at 21:43, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: James, I am very confused here about the concerns you are raising. Various governments and other development programs fund entities that deal with this issue, and do make grants for parties that do good work inside a country that has a sanction, but the group is not within that country. think for instance about Save the Children. Or Empretec. Of course, there are sanction issues that ICANN has to respect. BUT, granting funds to an entity that brings Internet to refugees in a country that has sanctions hardly sounds like something you would want to oppose -- the applicant might be an NGO not in that sanction country but serves such countries. Are you perhaps thinking we cannot consider such examples? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:18 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.foundation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=kT3w3BNUjOg6gVQM3y0cqT12xkjohwEdxuR5LWW6H0s%3D&reserved=0> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isif.asia&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=T1KpeTEyhRlqG8daG8xL%2FbgEbNw9FQVrnjp4QI1b61c%3D&reserved=0> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> 4101 Australia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F58730906%2FMay%25202016%2520-%2520Note%2520to%2520Auction%2520Proceeds%2520Charter%2520DT%2520re%2520legal%2520and%2520fiduciary%2520principles-UPDATED.doc%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1466697425000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=nTCzKaXrfh7OXXu34P2m%2BNzuhnC5%2Fy9CJgvnCrNQOIQ%3D&reserved=0>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> USA<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215625055810&sdata=1SX2ly2kIZ098i%2B%2BqPU%2BwnF%2B1%2BjvHop0mtqCd0KXhVY%3D&reserved=0>
I tend to agree with James wrt this point, on the basis that since the Auction funding is 501c3 mission-constrained on the disbursement front down to the final recipients, no matter how many intermediaries there are in between, I don't see how it could be constraint-free on the us-legal company front along the same lines (that is: if ICANN gives fund to a legal partner that itself gives it to an illegal one, ICANN is still liable). On 2018-07-25 21:48, James Gannon wrote:
I am saying that ICANN is not in the normal situation of a grant making organisation, and as such may be restricted in some small areas (Such as by sanctions) in the form it can make the grant making. For example it would be to me legally grey to pass a parcel of funding to a third party to distribute in a manner that may not align with the ICANN bylaws or the restrictions made by applicable law to ICANN. This is where I feel we are too close to implementation issues as this will be a decision that can only be made on a case by case basis and will depend on the current sanctions list at the time of application etc etc and many other point in time variables.
-James
On 25 Jul 2018, at 21:43, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
James, I am very confused here about the concerns you are raising.
Various governments and other development programs fund entities that deal with this issue, and do make grants for parties that do good work inside a country that has a sanction, but the group is not within that country. think for instance about Save the Children.
Or Empretec.
Of course, there are sanction issues that ICANN has to respect. BUT, granting funds to an entity that brings Internet to refugees in a country that has sanctions hardly sounds like something you would want to oppose -- the applicant might be an NGO not in that sanction country but serves such countries.
Are you perhaps thinking we cannot consider such examples?
________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:18 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote:
In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings
On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Sylvia
I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well.
As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. .
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia,
I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law...
Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one.
I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote:
This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization.
The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government.
I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding.
Regards,
Sylvia
---------
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.foundation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=kT3w3BNUjOg6gVQM3y0cqT12xkjohwEdxuR5LWW6H0s%3D&reserved=0> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isif.asia&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=T1KpeTEyhRlqG8daG8xL%2FbgEbNw9FQVrnjp4QI1b61c%3D&reserved=0> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> 4101 Australia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is:
ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3).
In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F58730906%2FMay%25202016%2520-%2520Note%2520to%2520Auction%2520Proceeds%2520Charter%2520DT%2520re%2520legal%2520and%2520fiduciary%2520principles-UPDATED.doc%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1466697425000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=nTCzKaXrfh7OXXu34P2m%2BNzuhnC5%2Fy9CJgvnCrNQOIQ%3D&reserved=0>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible.
However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant.
— Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> USA<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective.
Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared".
In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting.
I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG.
Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4.
In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline.
Many thanks,
Carolina
El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items:
Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
Best regards,
Marika
Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]
[eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense... sBHxDYfdX06X9LCkuhc2yI34ZosB6p9OFTguSsigY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=8LjQUadECtdHCfdrSDWKkv07XaeFfk5wacnhZUYU4sM%3D&reserved=0>.
1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes
2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate
3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc.
4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting.
Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list.
5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached)
· Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process.
Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made.
Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>.
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>
-- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215625055810&sdata=1SX2ly2kIZ098i%2B%2BqPU%2BwnF%2B1%2BjvHop0mtqCd0KXhVY%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
You are certainly right, Marilyn and this is a common sense for several well respectful Foundations. I see no grey space here. Is just a clear way on how those good organization can reach grants in restrict countries. 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. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 16:43 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting James, I am very confused here about the concerns you are raising. Various governments and other development programs fund entities that deal with this issue, and do make grants for parties that do good work inside a country that has a sanction, but the group is not within that country. think for instance about Save the Children. Or Empretec. Of course, there are sanction issues that ICANN has to respect. BUT, granting funds to an entity that brings Internet to refugees in a country that has sanctions hardly sounds like something you would want to oppose -- the applicant might be an NGO not in that sanction country but serves such countries. Are you perhaps thinking we cannot consider such examples? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:18 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.foundation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=kT3w3BNUjOg6gVQM3y0cqT12xkjohwEdxuR5LWW6H0s%3D&reserved=0> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isif.asia&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=T1KpeTEyhRlqG8daG8xL%2FbgEbNw9FQVrnjp4QI1b61c%3D&reserved=0> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> 4101 Australia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F58730906%2FMay%25202016%2520-%2520Note%2520to%2520Auction%2520Proceeds%2520Charter%2520DT%2520re%2520legal%2520and%2520fiduciary%2520principles-UPDATED.doc%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1466697425000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=nTCzKaXrfh7OXXu34P2m%2BNzuhnC5%2Fy9CJgvnCrNQOIQ%3D&reserved=0>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> USA<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215625055810&sdata=1SX2ly2kIZ098i%2B%2BqPU%2BwnF%2B1%2BjvHop0mtqCd0KXhVY%3D&reserved=0>
There are many things that I find a waste of time and effort, Mr. Levine, definitely not seeking clarity to make recommendations based on facts and understanding of the law, that have been contrasted through a second opinion. This group has received input from external experts already, so I am not asking something impossible or against the spirit of these deliberations. To take the example you use around the Australian sanctions, and using Myanmar as an example, understanding what sanctions really mean is important. Yes, there are sanctions to Myanmar, and yes, Australian organizations and government funds cannot be spent there but on weapons and anything related to the military industry. See http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/sanctions/sanctions-regi... There are however, hundreds of examples of funding invested in Myanmar on technical capacity building, Internet development, gender empowerment, delivery of online services, affordability, accessibility and so on. You can find here the list of just the ones that DFAT funds http://dfat.gov.au/geo/myanmar/Pages/myanmar.aspx. I have not said that I am “not willing to participate in a distribution scheme that operates under US law”. What I said -again- is that to be able to provide recommendations to the Board about mechanism to use, the implications of the US sanctions have to be clear. And no, I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I will not excuse myself from this group. My contributions have always been respectful, based on my 23 years of experience in grant-making specifically focused on Internet for development. I have been involved in different projects that administer funds from several governments (including the US government) as well as private sector and philanthropic organizations across jurisdictions, working at organizations with a regional footprint. Conversations about sanctions and how those apply to the grant mechanisms are always part of the discussions around eligibility criteria, which is the one of the key elements that any grant-making program has to define, along with objectives and modalities, of course. --------- 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 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 7:20 am To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting You are certainly right, Marilyn and this is a common sense for several well respectful Foundations. I see no grey space here. Is just a clear way on how those good organization can reach grants in restrict countries. 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. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 16:43 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting James, I am very confused here about the concerns you are raising. Various governments and other development programs fund entities that deal with this issue, and do make grants for parties that do good work inside a country that has a sanction, but the group is not within that country. think for instance about Save the Children. Or Empretec. Of course, there are sanction issues that ICANN has to respect. BUT, granting funds to an entity that brings Internet to refugees in a country that has sanctions hardly sounds like something you would want to oppose -- the applicant might be an NGO not in that sanction country but serves such countries. Are you perhaps thinking we cannot consider such examples? ________________________________ From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:18 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Sorry but in the commercial space at least that would be very very grey from a legal perspective and sounds like avoidance of sanctions Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 14:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.foundation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=kT3w3BNUjOg6gVQM3y0cqT12xkjohwEdxuR5LWW6H0s%3D&reserved=0> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isif.asia&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=T1KpeTEyhRlqG8daG8xL%2FbgEbNw9FQVrnjp4QI1b61c%3D&reserved=0> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> 4101 Australia<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and%20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1466697425000&api=v2<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F58730906%2FMay%25202016%2520-%2520Note%2520to%2520Auction%2520Proceeds%2520Charter%2520DT%2520re%2520legal%2520and%2520fiduciary%2520principles-UPDATED.doc%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1466697425000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624743309&sdata=nTCzKaXrfh7OXXu34P2m%2BNzuhnC5%2Fy9CJgvnCrNQOIQ%3D&reserved=0>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> USA<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googl...>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215624899557&sdata=PI33YRlx1HLsBencjcuHreBMteftICzJgQpZ8dEMhMg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C21cec03243324e24625a08d5f2313bc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636681215625055810&sdata=1SX2ly2kIZ098i%2B%2BqPU%2BwnF%2B1%2BjvHop0mtqCd0KXhVY%3D&reserved=0>
Dear Vanda, What you say could seem like a good solution, however I don't think that it is up to this group nor within its scope to come up with solutions in this regard. Best Hadia From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 2:50 PM To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In my experience in developing country the way to go over some restrictions is make a group of NGOs and the primer - not under restriction - will be responsible for the money and will pay the other costs . Sometimes this is the only way to allow good organizations in restricted countries to participate and works well. What we need to do is make clear that projects involving different NGOs from different countries is allowed and the relationship will be done with the primer Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Sylvia I checked with NZ which I have always considered quite liberal, and they have (UN) sanctions against a lot of countries where we in At-Large have ALSes who may want to access grants from auction funds in the future, but will not be able to do so if we decided to set up a Foundation or perhaps found a charitable organisation to distribute the funds in NZ and probably Australia as well. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to find a country that didn't have these sanctions. So end-users in these countries who might have a really deserving project would still be the underserved, but there would be little we could do about it with the auction proceeds. . On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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,<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> 4101 Australia<https://maps.google.com/?q=6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD,+4101+Aust...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Los Angeles, California 90094<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%...> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159<https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
I have requested an external legal opinion to understand the implications of recommending scenario #1 to the board. I will not support scenario number 1 if that is not clear. I am 100% sure many on the ICANN community will object and react quite strongly to funding allocations that can’t support the communities they serve. I am NOT saying that the CCWG should try to look into how to avoid any applicable law. This is NOT going to far into implementation at all. This is a very important part of the basic -very basic- framework. ———— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia<x-apple-data-detectors://5> | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100<tel:+61%207%203858%203100> | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199<tel:3858%203199> * Love trees. Print only if necessary. On 25 Jul 2018, at 4:10 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Sylvia, Perhaps we can discuss further on tomorrow’s call the specific question that you feel needs addition input. Are you asking for a second opinion on the question: “Under scenario 1, could ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions?” Or is there another element that you feel needs additional clarification? Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 09:09 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting I have requested an external legal opinion to understand the implications of recommending scenario #1 to the board. I will not support scenario number 1 if that is not clear. I am 100% sure many on the ICANN community will object and react quite strongly to funding allocations that can’t support the communities they serve. I am NOT saying that the CCWG should try to look into how to avoid any applicable law. This is NOT going to far into implementation at all. This is a very important part of the basic -very basic- framework. ———— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation [apnic.foundation]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation_&d=...> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia_&d=DwMGaQ&...> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia<x-apple-data-detectors://5> | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100<tel:+61%207%203858%203100> | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199<tel:3858%203199> * Love trees. Print only if necessary. On 25 Jul 2018, at 4:10 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation [apnic.foundation]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apnic.foundation&d=D...> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia [isif.asia]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.isif.asia&d=DwMGaQ&c...> | 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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N... [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Sylvia, I agree with you that the ICANN community would object if the funding cannot serve its people but how do you see the other mechanisms solving this problem? This problem of sanctions, jurisdictions and applicable laws will always apply and are inevitable. Best Hadia From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia Cadena Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:08 AM To: James Gannon Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting I have requested an external legal opinion to understand the implications of recommending scenario #1 to the board. I will not support scenario number 1 if that is not clear. I am 100% sure many on the ICANN community will object and react quite strongly to funding allocations that can’t support the communities they serve. I am NOT saying that the CCWG should try to look into how to avoid any applicable law. This is NOT going to far into implementation at all. This is a very important part of the basic -very basic- framework. ———— Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 | http://www.isif.asia<http://www.isif.asia/> | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia<x-apple-data-detectors://5> | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100<tel:+61%207%203858%203100> | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199<tel:3858%203199> * Love trees. Print only if necessary. On 25 Jul 2018, at 4:10 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Sylvia, I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law... Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one. I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net<mailto:sylvia@apnic.net>> wrote: This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. Regards, Sylvia --------- Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net<mailto: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<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ 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
Dear All - I'm just following up with all the emails concerning this topic. I had to look after a family matter and was not that much able to follow discussions that were triggered by the work the subgroup undertook. I'm certain we will find a solution. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion today. Kind regards, Erika On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Dear Sylvia,
I agree with you that the ICANN community would object if the funding cannot serve its people but how do you see the other mechanisms solving this problem? This problem of sanctions, jurisdictions and applicable laws will always apply and are inevitable.
Best
Hadia
*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sylvia Cadena *Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:08 AM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
I have requested an external legal opinion to understand the implications of recommending scenario #1 to the board. I will not support scenario number 1 if that is not clear. I am 100% sure many on the ICANN community will object and react quite strongly to funding allocations that can’t support the communities they serve.
I am NOT saying that the CCWG should try to look into how to avoid any applicable law.
This is NOT going to far into implementation at all. This is a very important part of the basic -very basic- framework.
————
*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 <+61%207%203858%203100> | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
On 25 Jul 2018, at 4:10 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Sylvia,
I don’t think any legal opinion is going to tell us there is a mechanism to avoid applicable law...
Neither can any form that the CCWG recommends place the core function of ICANN at risk. That needs to be priority one.
I think his is too far into implementation for the CCWG at this point and we need to accept that there will be restrictions due to sanctions no matter what form location jurisdiction etc is selected
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:27, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net> wrote:
This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization.
The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government.
I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding.
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 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am *To: *Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade < marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
In response to Maureen’s question below (*Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), **the answer is*:
ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3).
In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-% 20Note%20to%20Auction%20Proceeds%20Charter%20DT%20re%20legal%20and% 20fiduciary%20principles-UPDATED.doc?version=1&modificationDate= 1466697425000&api=v2), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible.
However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant.
—
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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM *To: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective.
Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?
From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same.
Just a thought.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared".
In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting.
I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG.
Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ------------------------------
*From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM *To:* Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org; Marika Konings
*Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not.
*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. *
*From: *Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> *Date: *Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting
Dear Marika and all,
As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions:
1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3.
2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing.
Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US.
Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4.
In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline.
Many thanks,
Carolina
El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items:
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
*Action item#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fcommunity.icann.org-5Fdisplay-5FCWGONGAP-5F2018-2D2BMeetings-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM-2526r-253D7-5FPQAir-2D9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM-2526m-253Dg5e8GKeABRNdcde9uTwS2jyUXaM3FeYdtkHYan3sEag-2526s-253DKrGNwJFFA-2Dj2-5FRmHTliCAvxXuWCjy3mobJPtd5lz4K8-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636679691718742459-26sdata-3Dg0h-252FCxKC515TDpB7T-252BdYHw-252FDzkGgD9g27pNGGMUIV2s-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=VqWxPnFVIUmWQHGZJxDFDgVJn47445frtXeBi7QYCGc&s=gZsBHxDYfdX06X9LCkuhc2yI34ZosB6p9OFTguSsigY&e=>* *.*
1. Roll Call
· Attendance will be taken from AC
· Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes
2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates
· Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods?
· Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate
3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates
· See notes and action items from that meeting
· A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today
· Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc.
4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly)
· See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list
· Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report.
· Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG.
· What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions?
· What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation.
· May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these.
· Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources.
· Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations.
· How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report.
· Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting.
*Action item #1*: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list.
5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached)
· Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful.
· Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process.
*Action item #2*: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions.
6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached)
· See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared.
· Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all.
· Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere.
· More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll.
· Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made.
*Action item#3*: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues.
7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC)
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. *
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>
-- Carolina Caeiro
*Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo* Coordinator of Development Projects
*www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lacnic.net-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cdd9abd1751d94eb6396b08d5f0ce6bc0-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636679691718742459-26sdata-3DLihhELb-252F8kudqMYGGPJz0nzr2f7uTOjZCWJhl7hI8fQ-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=VqWxPnFVIUmWQHGZJxDFDgVJn47445frtXeBi7QYCGc&s=6IJWDeAEoG-T6V8KA0GwyauGTz7x4CZPJqFbT588K88&e=>* *Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry*
_______________________________________________ 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
Unfortunately any country/jurisdiction you pick will have its own sanctions that you need to abide to and follow. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia Cadena Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 6:26 AM To: Samantha Eisner; Maureen Hilyard; Marilyn Cade Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting This issue about being able to support/ accept proposals/applications from the whole world has been an issue expressed and supported by many of us. It is indeed a serious point to consider to support scenario 1 and having ICANN administering the whole process as part of the ICANN organization. The list of US sanctioned jurisdictions is growing -unfortunately- and the ICANN community is an international one. The source of the funding from the auction proceeds is also international, is does not come from the US government. I would like to request an external legal opinion on this. Although I do value and respect the input provide by the ICANN legal team, but I do not thing the CCWG should rely only on the legal opinion of who will “benefit” from the decision to support the scenario where ICANN manages the funding. 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 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 7:59 am To: Maureen Hilyard Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting In response to Maureen’s question below (Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world?), the answer is: ICANN will be able to send grants to NGOs anywhere in the world that are: (1) not under sanction by the US; and (2) that meet the due diligence requirements sufficient to demonstrate that they are proper recipients of a grant from a U.S. 501(c)(3). In our initial memo produced for the CCWG (available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730906/May%202016%20-%20N...), we detailed that it is fully possible to have a grant program that is not limited only to US 501(c)(3) organizations, relying instead on due diligence over the grantee. We committed early on that it was important that this program not be limited to the U.S. From that aspect, Marilyn’s example of the ability of grantmaking to entities in Afghanistan should be entirely feasible. However, the first question that kicked off the discussion below was actually focused on a different issue: whether ICANN’s need to follow sanctions rules could bar ICANN from allowing a grant to be given to an entity under sanctions. The answer to that is YES. Carolina raised this question using the specific example of entities in Venezuela ("I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply?”) To be clear, there is no jurisdiction that we could select to house a disbursement mechanism that that would relieve ICANN of following these sanctions laws. Compliance with OFAC rules and other applicable sanctions regimes must be followed in the grant making process. As a result, even if an applicant was located in the U.S. but was subject to sanctions, a grant from the auction proceeds could not go to that applicant. — 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 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Yes Carolina and Marilyn, a very interesting perspective. Have ICANN assured us that they would not have a problem with sending grants to NGOS anywhere in the world? From my perspective too, it seems a bit of a conflict that ICANN who is very reluctant to even reimburse hard-working ICANN constituency volunteers for expenses that they may pay out from their own pocket to attend ICANN meetings and/or to carry out outreach and other work in the regions that promote and support ICANN's mission, is being considered as the distributor of large sums of grant money to other outside personnel and organisations to do the same. Just a thought. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: This is an interesting topic, but needs to have more exploration before assumptions are "declared". In May, I was in Afghanistan, and two major corporations were there, describing their capacity building programs, funded by their CSR programs. they saw no barriers to making contribution to the NGOs they were supporting. I was recently in another country where there is high assertion of fraud, and there were NGOs who could only do their capacity building because of contributions from US based entities, ranging from companies to Foundations, to USG. Some countries have unique challenges, but we can't and should not design a program based on exception. ________________________________ 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: Monday, July 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: Carolina Caeiro; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>; Marika Konings Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Some US organization cannot give grants to many other countries under specific restrictions or not. 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. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net<mailto:carolina@lacnic.net>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 13:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org] [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. 1. Roll Call · Attendance will be taken from AC · Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates · Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? · Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates · See notes and action items from that meeting · A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today · Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) · See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list · Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. · Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. · What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? · What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. · May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. · Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. · Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. · How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. · Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) · Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. · Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) · See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. · Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. · Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. · More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. · Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item#3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur03.safelinks.protect...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Dear Carolina, Thank you for submitting these questions. Staff will incorporate them into the list of additional questions that require follow up. This document will be shared with the group in advance of this week’s call. Kind regards, Emily From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carolina Caeiro <carolina@lacnic.net> Date: Monday, 23 July 2018 at 18:54 To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting Dear Marika and all, As per action item #2, review of the Sarah's descriptions of the mechanisms, I have the following questions: 1. When speaking of International capabilities of the various mechanisms, I would like to know if there any country restrictions for non-US grants. For example, would organizations based in Venezuela which today faces US sanctions be eligible to apply? This is relevant to mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. 2. In comparing mechanisms, 1 and 2, I am also curious to better understand what it means for ICANN to have grant making activities reflected in its tax filings. Specifically, I would like to know if ICANN would be better protected by mechanism 2 by which the DAF reports for grant activity in its own tax filling as opposed mechanism 1 which foresees ICANN reporting grant-making activity on its own tax filing. Lastly, I think it should be noted in the description of mechanism 3 that we are assuming an ICANN Foundation would be US-based; there should be an explanation as to why we are only considering the option of it being based in the US. Lastly, in connection to the proposed responses to charter questions, for Charter question 11 ("Should a review mechanism be put in place to address possible adjustments to the framework?"), I see references to large vs small grants, number of disbursements, etc. While I think the group needs to come to an agreement on these points, those should be fleshed out when we review Charter Question 4. In connection to Action item #3, I have no concerns with the proposed steps/timeline. Many thanks, Carolina El 12/7/18 a las 12:27, Marika Konings escribió: Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. Please take particular note of the action items: Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. Best regards, Marika Notes & Action items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July 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/display/CWGONGAP/2018+Meetings [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. 1. Roll Call * Attendance will be taken from AC * Please mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name for transcription purposes 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates * Participation in recent meetings has been low, including limited participation today - is there a need to review working methods? * Please remember to review and update your SOI/DOIs as appropriate 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates * See notes and action items from that meeting * A number of items discussed at ICANN62 are also coming back on the agenda today * Leadership also provided an update to the ccNSO and the GAC on the status of deliberations - shared current timeline, questions under consideration, etc. 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) * See the document that was shared on the CCWG mailing list * Objective is to get this document into a state that it is ready for inclusion in the Initial Report. * Number of questions that have been identified - some may be responded to by Sam/Xavier, Sarah Berg but also the CCWG. * What approach should be taken to get to answers for these questions? * What is the role of the Board in internal mechanism? Board has indicated that they do not expect involvement in daily operations or approving individual projects. May need to be clarified by Board Liaisons re. how much they want to get involved in overseeing individual projects. Depending on which mechanism is recommended, Board may need / want to adjust its thinking. Board does not want any involvement in relation to decisions on individual grants, but oversight of administrative process is expected, for example through annual review / evaluation. * May need to pull out all legal / tax related questions and ask legal to provide guidance on these (possibly through outside counsel). Would first need to see the questions to determine who would be the best person/resource to respond to these. * Some questions earmarked for Sarah may also be more appropriate for other experts / sources. * Need to play it safe and be sure about decisions/recommendations. * How to extract those legal questions that may need input from outside counsel? Need certainty on those essential items before publishing Initial Report. * Small group of volunteers to review questions and undertake a triage effort (which questions are for CCWG to consider, which are for Sam/Xavier, which for Sarah Berg, which ones are possibly for an external source /counsel). Volunteers: Marilyn, Vanda, Samantha, Maureen, Erika. Objective for the small group is to undertake triage effort early next week following which it would share its recommendations with the CCWG ahead of next meeting. Action item #1: staff to set up doodle poll for small group for a call early next week to undertake triage effort. If there are other volunteers, please share your interest with the mailing list. 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) * Number of questions were identifed for Sarah - will be considered as part of the triage effort as identified under previous item so that a defined set of questions can be shared with Sarah as there may be other items for which her input will be helpful. * Note question in relation to need for human rights assessment into the process. CCWG-Accountability WS2 provided recommendations in this regard - need to consider how that would be implemented into the auction proceeds process. Action item #2: CCWG to review summary document and identify any remaining questions as soon as possible so that these can be considered by the small group of volunteers undertaking the triage of questions. 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) * See remaining steps & proposed timeline shared. * Please share any concerns you may have about the timeline with the list. Meeting the target of publication of an Initial Report by ICANN63 will require commitment and participation from all. * Should additional meetings be scheduled to make sure all issues can be considered in detail? May be a challenge considering the August timeframe and vacation time in the northern hemisphere. * More time may be needed for consultations in relation to the poll. * Need to maintain flexibility and review on a regular basis how to adjust the timeline / schedule of meetings as this is dependent on the progress that is made. Action item #3: CCWG to review remaining steps and proposed timeline and identify any concerns / issues. 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) 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 [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Carolina Caeiro Coordinadora de Proyectos de Desarrollo Coordinator of Development Projects www.lacnic.net [lacnic.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lacnic.net&d=DwMDaQ&...> Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
participants (12)
-
Carolina Caeiro -
Daniel Dardailler -
Emily Barabas -
Erika Mann -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
James Gannon -
Marika Konings -
Marilyn Cade -
Maureen Hilyard -
Samantha Eisner -
Sylvia Cadena -
Vanda Scartezini