Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds
Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W. You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting All, A couple of thoughts on this topic. On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: * Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and * If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Hello, Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: All, I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_investment-2Dpolicy-2D2014-2D07-2D30-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=Dww8xHmK4zEHqHK0lHK7IdorPuvHkXKk1luyeB5pBxQ&s=rcBRrG4RZelJUExS-glQJgvDHB75hZlkZOX7O2qDG_A&e=>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs@bemarnet.es<mailto:djs@bemarnet.es>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.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 & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. Alan At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: Hi Erika and all, I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something? Dietmar Stefitz Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Erika, Dear All,
Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve account.
If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level has not been reached.
Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the Board and not by this group
Regards
Kavouss
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting.
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017:
These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=6OyX-H7GEmBCRJWXNDGE46VvO6oDVoRB82Z2AeomXAg&e=>.
Roll Call
Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking. Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room.
Welcome – DOI
Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management
The intention of this presentation is
to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be raised.
It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead to how they might be managed in the future.
Important to note:
only conservative investment policies are being used the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives
An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, followed by Q&A.
Parameters that need to be considered:
amount of money horizon level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon)
Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly stakeholder calls.
(amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterlyreports&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=baFsmaqAdvnSkJG4eoXhzZNn5-StHSA9z08s4kUvK4E&e=>)
Reserve Fund: 64 million New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million Auction proceeds: 233 million Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD.
Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be legal.
This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€
The group needs to discuss this at a later stage.
Next meeting
next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC
= = = =
Action item #1:
CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+call[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_CWGONGAP_2017-2D08-2D10-2BCCWG-2BNew-2BgTLD-2BAuction-2BProceeds-2Bcall&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=FQiYsQAxL7CV_3RJCSjIYJtSMgDGoFBN-QeXmJoUPBU&e=> ) and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list.
Action item #2:
Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC.
Action item #3:
CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the discussion on the mailing list.
= = = =
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Many thanks Marika, Good idea to do a survey. Jonathan From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:12 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W. You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> >, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org <mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org> > Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> " <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting All, A couple of thoughts on this topic. On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: - Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and - If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org <mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Hello, Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org <mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org> > wrote: All, I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> , see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs@bemarnet.es <mailto:djs@bemarnet.es> >, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> >, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.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 & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. Alan At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: Hi Erika and all, I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something? Dietmar Stefitz Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear Erika, Dear All,
Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve account.
If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level has not been reached.
Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the Board and not by this group
Regards
Kavouss
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting.
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017:
These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D...> .
Roll Call
Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking. Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room.
Welcome – DOI
Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management
The intention of this presentation is
to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be raised.
It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead to how they might be managed in the future.
Important to note:
only conservative investment policies are being used the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives
An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, followed by Q&A.
Parameters that need to be considered:
amount of money horizon level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon)
Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly stakeholder calls.
(amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterly...> )
Reserve Fund: 64 million New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million Auction proceeds: 233 million Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD.
Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be legal.
This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€
The group needs to discuss this at a later stage.
Next meeting
next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC
= = = =
Action item #1:
CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+call[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ) and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list.
Action item #2:
Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC.
Action item #3:
CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the discussion on the mailing list.
(see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_re...> )
= = = =
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> >>> joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...>
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...>
http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFA...>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list MK <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Marika, I have responded accordingly. Just a minor question for my info, who makes up the leadership team referred to in your mail? And how are they connected to the work of this CCWG? Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/ r/HRRV93W.
You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest.
Thanks,
Marika
*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Organization: *Afilias *Reply-To: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Date: *Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 *To: *'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" < xavier.calvez@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
All,
A couple of thoughts on this topic.
On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place.
Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector.
Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG.
In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months.
My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves.
But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds.
In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds.
My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve.
In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds.
If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds.
At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains:
- Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and - If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)?
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM *To:* Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
Hello,
Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-)
However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve.
I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> wrote:
All,
I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment- policy-2014-07-30-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below).
“The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“
I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations.
Thank you.
Best,
Xavier
Xavier Calvez
ICANN – SVP & CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Phone: 310-301-5838
Mobile: 805-312-0052
Fax: 310-957-2348
*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM *To: *Dietmar Stefitz <djs@bemarnet.es>, Michael Karanicolas < mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly.
I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m.
But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if.
Alan
At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote:
Hi Erika and all,
I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects.
I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future.
I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something?
Dietmar Stefitz
Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote:
*MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> <* kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
*> wrote: >> Dear Erika, Dear All, >> Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to >> allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve >> account. >> If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the >> level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be >> equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level >> has not been reached. >> Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside* * >> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed*
* >> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve >> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the >> Board and not by this group >> Regards >> Kavouss >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <*joke.braeken@icann.org
*> >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting.*
* >>> Best regards,*
* >>> Joke Braeken*
* >>> Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017:*
* >>> These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the*
* >>> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript >>> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and >>> are posted on the wiki at: * https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D...>
*. >>> Roll Call >>> Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on >>> mute when not speaking. >>> Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. >>> Welcome – DOI*
* >>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management >>> The intention of this presentation is >>> to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, >>> to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be >>> raised. >>> It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an >>> overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead >>> to how they might be managed in the future. >>> Important to note: >>> only conservative investment policies are being used >>> the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives >>> An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, >>> followed by Q&A. >>> Parameters that need to be considered: >>> amount of money >>> horizon >>> level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) >>> Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly >>> stakeholder calls. >>> (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. *>>> https://www.icann.org/ quarterlyreports[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterly...>
*) >>> Reserve Fund: 64 million >>> New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million >>> Auction proceeds: 233 million >>> Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. >>> Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be >>> taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be >>> legal. >>> This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this >>> question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or* * >>> a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds†*
* >>> The group needs to discuss this at a later stage.*
* >>> Next meeting*
* >>> next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC*
* >>> = = = = >>> Action item #1: >>> CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on *>>> https://community.icann.org/ display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+ Proceeds+call[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> *) >>> and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list.*
* >>> Action item #2:*
* >>> Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the*
* >>> attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based >>> on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is >>> encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of >>> objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the >>> next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC. >>> Action item #3: >>> CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the >>> discussion on the mailing list.
(see *https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[ surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_re...>
* ) >>> = = = = >>> Joke Braeken >>> ccNSO Policy Advisor *>>> joke.braeken@icann.org <joke.braeken@icann.org>
*>>> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: *https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...>
*>>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: *https://www.facebook.com/ ccnso/[facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...>
http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFA...>
*>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
*>> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
*MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
*-- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>*
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Seun, the leadership team consists of Erika and Ching, the co-chairs of this WG. Best regards, Marika From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:07 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Subject: [Ext] Re: Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds Thanks Marika, I have responded accordingly. Just a minor question for my info, who makes up the leadership team referred to in your mail? And how are they connected to the work of this CCWG? Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRRV93W[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_HRRV93W&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=k3n78_L9aVy74ceEo3UqOAfxZuPKNSz7h3cP1xs7ZWU&s=bTkrJTssqAKHQ2-wAHqZ5xGwXflnR3T6VFpbTxX_8xo&e=>. You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting All, A couple of thoughts on this topic. On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place. Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector. Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG. In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months. My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves. But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds. In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds. My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve. In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds. If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds. At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains: * Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and * If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting Hello, Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-) However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve. I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: All, I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_investment-2Dpolicy-2D2014-2D07-2D30-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=Dww8xHmK4zEHqHK0lHK7IdorPuvHkXKk1luyeB5pBxQ&s=rcBRrG4RZelJUExS-glQJgvDHB75hZlkZOX7O2qDG_A&e=>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below). “The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“ I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: Dietmar Stefitz <djs@bemarnet.es<mailto:djs@bemarnet.es>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.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 & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly. I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m. But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if. Alan At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote: Hi Erika and all, I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects. I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future. I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something? Dietmar Stefitz Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote: MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Erika, Dear All,
Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve account.
If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level has not been reached.
Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the Board and not by this group
Regards
Kavouss
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear All,
Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting.
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017:
These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=6OyX-H7GEmBCRJWXNDGE46VvO6oDVoRB82Z2AeomXAg&e=>.
Roll Call
Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking. Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room.
Welcome – DOI
Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management
The intention of this presentation is
to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be raised.
It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead to how they might be managed in the future.
Important to note:
only conservative investment policies are being used the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives
An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, followed by Q&A.
Parameters that need to be considered:
amount of money horizon level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon)
Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly stakeholder calls.
(amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. https://www.icann.org/quarterlyreports[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterlyreports&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=baFsmaqAdvnSkJG4eoXhzZNn5-StHSA9z08s4kUvK4E&e=>)
Reserve Fund: 64 million New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million Auction proceeds: 233 million Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD.
Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be legal.
This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction fundsâ€
The group needs to discuss this at a later stage.
Next meeting
next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC
= = = =
Action item #1:
CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+call[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_CWGONGAP_2017-2D08-2D10-2BCCWG-2BNew-2BgTLD-2BAuction-2BProceeds-2Bcall&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=FQiYsQAxL7CV_3RJCSjIYJtSMgDGoFBN-QeXmJoUPBU&e=> ) and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list.
Action item #2:
Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC.
Action item #3:
CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the discussion on the mailing list.
= = = =
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Ah okay thanks! :-) Cheers! On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Seun, the leadership team consists of Erika and Ching, the co-chairs of this WG.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:07 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson@afilias.info> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Please participate - survey re. whether ICANN Org should be able to apply for funds
Thanks Marika, I have responded accordingly. Just a minor question for my info, who makes up the leadership team referred to in your mail? And how are they connected to the work of this CCWG?
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Jonathan, thank you for your suggestion and others for chiming in. In consultation with the leadership team, staff has put together a short survey to obtain CCWG input on the questions you have outlined below which will hopefully help inform the CCWG deliberations on this topic. To participate in the survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/ r/HRRV93W[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_...>.
You are requested to provide your input by Wednesday 23 August at 18.00 UTC at the latest.
Thanks,
Marika
*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Organization: *Afilias *Reply-To: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Date: *Friday, August 11, 2017 at 03:11 *To: *'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, "Xavier J. Calvez" < xavier.calvez@icann.org> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
All,
A couple of thoughts on this topic.
On the subject of whether or not ICANN should have a 12 month operating expense reserve in place.
Agreed that it seems to be common practice in the not for profit sector.
Whether or not it should be the case for ICANN is an interesting question, but agreed, not one for this CWG.
In any event, Xavier has clarified that the current policy is that the level of operating reserve should be 12 months.
My understanding of the question for this group is not whether or not we would sanction the (auction fund) money being used to top up the reserves.
But rather, whether or not we would like to see rules in place that sanction ICANN (the organisation) applying for auction funds.
In evaluating that question of ICANN the organisation as a prospective applicant, a use or test case for that consideration is ICANN applying (under the same rules as anyone else) for auction funds to top up the ICANN reserve funds.
My personal view is that ICANN should be demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling its current policy (to have in place a 12 month reserve) by budgeting an operating surplus to build that reserve.
In addition (independently of this CWG), ICANN should review its current policy on reserve funds.
If these two criteria were met, it would make me personaly much more sympathetic to potentially topping up reserve funds (to some extent) with auction funds.
At the risk of being repetitive, it seems to me that the question for this CWG remains:
- Whether or not ICANN the Organisation should be permitted to apply for funds? and - If so, what constraints should be place on this (use of funds, quantum etc)?
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM *To:* Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez@icann.org> *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
Hello,
Xavier is right about reserve that covers operational expenses for minimum is say 12 month being normal practice. Some even do it for more; some RIRs have way above 1 year already while others are working towards same. However ofcourse none can match the fat figures of ICANN budget. ;-)
However I don't think auction proceeds in this context can be referred to as surplus that can get ploughed back to achieve reserve target set by ICANN management NOR do I think it is a target/goal that this group should try to achieve.
I for will suggest that we should consider mechanisms that allow some community projects that ICANN normally fund in their budget to be eligible, which if approved (based on the process) may then result to more surpluses to ICANN and they(Board) can decide to put that to reserve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 10, 2017 10:26 PM, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org> wrote:
All,
I apologize if I did not make the following clear: ICANN’s current policy is to have in place a reserve fund equivalent to at minimum 12 months of operating expenses. Refer to ICANN’s Investment Policy, see at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment- policy-2014-07-30-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, see the paragraph “Size of Funds”, copied below).
“The Reserve Fund shall contain any amounts not contained in the Operating Fund. Any surplus funds will be used to build up the Reserve Fund to a balance sufficient to cover an emergency requirement. The Reserve Fund is expected to reach and maintain a level of funds to maintain a minimum of 12 months of expected expenditures.“
I indicated that this level of a reserve fund is the commonly used in non-profit organizations.
Thank you.
Best,
Xavier
Xavier Calvez
ICANN – SVP & CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Phone: 310-301-5838
Mobile: 805-312-0052
Fax: 310-957-2348
*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM *To: *Dietmar Stefitz <djs@bemarnet.es>, Michael Karanicolas < mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting
To be clear, I don't think anyone on the call suggested we build up the reserve to a 12 or 24 month level of current budget. Xavier said that 1 year was a typical norm for non-profits, but in my opinion, there is no need for that, as in the case of emergency, costs could be ramped down quickly.
I vaguely recall that the level that we were targeting (before the drain from the CCWG-Acct expenses) was something like $80m. So even if we contributed enough to get back to that level, it would be perhaps $40m.
But the issue in my mind is not how much, but if.
Alan
At 10/08/2017 03:28 PM, Dietmar Stefitz wrote:
Hi Erika and all,
I have been very astonished to hear the proposal to use the Auction Money in filling up the reserve account of ICANN. Filling up for 12 month reserve or 24 month reserve, if we have to take 24 month, there will not be much left to disburse to other projects.
I thought that the call from Xavier has been to explain specially the Investment of the fund at this moment, for which I can only congratulate. A 1% return on a super save investment is not bad, and it should be made like this in the future.
I would absolutely be against a filling up of the reserve fund from the auction proceeds, at least as a decision from this group. Or did I misunderstand something?
Dietmar Stefitz
Thursday, August 10, 2017, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote:
*MK> Hi Kavouss, MK> Am I missing something - or are you suggesting that the CCWG should MK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's reserve MK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used to MK> that effect? MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider anything beyond that MK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication how much money we MK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is replenished. MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made unless we MK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right? MK> Michael Karanicolas MK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh MK> <* kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
*> wrote: >> Dear Erika, Dear All, >> Today during the last 15 mints of the call I tried to draw your attention to >> allow me to intervene on the views expressed by Alan reading the Reserve >> account. >> If I have well understood his statement he wanted that CCWG discuss the >> level of ICANN reserve account which was announced by Xavier to be >> equivalent to one year budget as objective. As Xavier mentioned this level >> has not been reached. >> Alan’s view that CCWG discuss the level of ICANN reserve account is outside* *>> the mandate of CCWG. We may just decide whether or not that account be fed*
*>> by using Auction money but decision on the appropriate level of the reserve >> account is totally outside or mandate as it is a decision to be made by the >> Board and not by this group >> Regards >> Kavouss >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Joke Braeken <*joke.braeken@icann.org
*> >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCWG-AP meeting.*
*>>> Best regards,*
*>>> Joke Braeken*
*>>> Notes CCWG – AP Meeting 10 August 2017:*
*>>> These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the*
*>>> content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript >>> and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and >>> are posted on the wiki at: * https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D...>
*. >>> Roll Call >>> Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on >>> mute when not speaking. >>> Attendance will be taken from the AdobeConnect room. >>> Welcome – DOI*
*>>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management >>> The intention of this presentation is >>> to allow the group to think on the issue of investment, >>> to understand ICANN's practice, and to answer any questions that might be >>> raised. >>> It helps to inform the discussion on the ROI of the fund; It includes an >>> overview of how the auction proceeds are currently managed, which might lead >>> to how they might be managed in the future. >>> Important to note: >>> only conservative investment policies are being used >>> the investment strategy will be designed in support of the objectives >>> An overview of some illustrative investment scenarios was provided, >>> followed by Q&A. >>> Parameters that need to be considered: >>> amount of money >>> horizon >>> level of risk (which is not correlated to the horizon) >>> Financial information is regularly provided during the quarterly >>> stakeholder calls. >>> (amount from latest update - Q3 data of FY17. *>>> https://www.icann.org/ quarterlyreports[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_quarterly...>
*) >>> Reserve Fund: 64 million >>> New gTLD unspent application fees: 128 million >>> Auction proceeds: 233 million >>> Annual budget of ICANN. FY18 budget expenses 142 million USD. >>> Regarding replenishing the reserve fund: appropriate procedures need to be >>> taken, appropriate approvals and decisions need to be in place for it to be >>> legal. >>> This is however a moral question as well. The charter does include this >>> question: “To what extent (and, if so, how) could ICANN, the Organization or* *>>> a constituent part thereof, be the beneficiary of some of the auction funds†*
*>>> The group needs to discuss this at a later stage.*
*>>> Next meeting*
*>>> next CCWG-AP meeting is scheduled for Thursday 24 August at 14.00 UTC*
*>>> = = = = >>> Action item #1: >>> CCWG to review the slides presented by Xavier (published on *>>> https://community.icann.org/ display/CWGONGAP/2017-08-10+CCWG+New+gTLD+Auction+ Proceeds+call[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> *) >>> and to share any further questions for Xavier on the group’s mailing list.*
*>>> Action item #2:*
*>>> Per the discussion during the CCWG-AP meeting on 27 July 2017, the*
*>>> attached mind map was developed, which aims to regroup the objectives based >>> on the survey results as well as the subsequent discussions. The CCWG is >>> encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the proposed regrouping of >>> objectives/priorities, as well as the clustering of examples ahead of the >>> next meeting, scheduled for 24 August at 14 UTC.
Action item #3: >>> CCWG to review responses to charter question #4 and to continue the >>> discussion on the mailing list. >>> (see * https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_re...>
* ) >>> = = = = >>> Joke Braeken >>> ccNSO Policy Advisor *>>> joke.braeken@icann.org <joke.braeken@icann.org>
*>>> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: *https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...>
*>>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: *https://www.facebook.com/ ccnso/[facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...>
http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFA...>
*>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
*>> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>
*MK> _______________________________________________ MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list *MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
*-- Saludos, Dietmar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:YWDqnEPXx/CS7utzz6td9Qa3koj9je2Sjv9LFnursD0J2VA30AdYQS9BENOC1oqUgmoT+mzlFx7ydYsubIRVesT4Y1jhb3iYxs4FdjVwmhiKOJ9o59lZBh7cDwAsDaB/ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>*
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Marika Konings -
Seun Ojedeji