[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes & action items from today's CCWG-AP meeting

Fri Aug 11 10:56:00 UTC 2017

I will like to add my +1 to the two questions posed by Jonathan. I will
attempt to provide a response to the 2 question if we agree it's the way to
approach this matter.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 11, 2017 10:10 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> 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 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 7:18 AM
> *To:* Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
> *Cc:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 at 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,
> 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Alan
> Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM
> *To: *Dietmar Stefitz <djs at bemarnet.es>, Michael Karanicolas <
> mkaranicolas at gmail.com>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 shouldMK> only determine whether or not money be fed into ICANN's
> reserveMK> account, without also indicating what proportion should be used
> toMK> that effect?MK> If so - I don't see how the CCWG could consider
> anything beyond thatMK> simple yes/no question, as we'd have no indication
> how much money weMK> would have leftover to work with, once the reserve is
> replenished.MK> Decisions about allocation priorities can't really be made
> unless weMK> also look at how the pie should be portioned out, right?MK>
> Michael KaranicolasMK> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kavouss ArastehMK>
> <* kavouss.arasteh at 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.>> Alanâ€™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 at icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *>>> wrote:>>> Dear All,>>> Please find below the notes and action items
> from todayâ€™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: â€œTo
> 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 groupâ€™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_results_SM-2D6GNDQHJ6_&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=yulKeXnAn5CN2_dNRAj8nx_5IeuwBT4F1Heh3dtZJWI&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * )>>> = = = =>>> Joke Braeken>>> ccNSO Policy Advisor*>>>
> joke.braeken at icann.org <joke.braeken at 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=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=ksIYlCk3ZzcyyNbJFUxushrbiDZC4_lO_WVwmhRrWG4&e=>
>
> *>>> 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_&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=K_zzz3ZhAdQ0ckOqfmq_HvpwupZ-DfQbOd39kyGgqsI&e=>
>
> >>> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=IWWGaKyGUGcKQNGe7LtArAou7HP6fPR5aWjbPBUFZ3k&m=HKuU-9DAESnqcGMIdaNf5MeIgsXuBdt1W6-AYHyIJIc&s=kopXyX7wBTECByzaEGsPL-Mbcct5zfvtn4kCkugUF3I&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *>>> _______________________________________________>>>
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list*>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
>
>
>
> *>> _______________________________________________>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds
> mailing list*>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
> *MK> _______________________________________________MK>
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list*MK> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> MK> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *-- Saludos,Dietmar                     Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitContent-Disposition:
> inlineX-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 listCcwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> <Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170811/4175bb0d/attachment-0001.html>