[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Reminder - review updated work plan by Wednesday 4 April

Daniel Dardailler danield at w3.org
Wed Apr 4 15:10:18 UTC 2018

I assume it's the same as the one sent by Erika a short while ago. The 
call cancelled tomorrow is still there though.

I was wondering what are the constraints for the public review (is 2 
months a minimum ?) and consequently I find the time for Chartering 
Organizations review (a couple of weeks at the end of the workplan) 
shorter in comparison.

I also think we need to find time to rediscuss the preample (I favor 
reworking it rather than dropping it), is that already there ? Maybe end 
of May/June ?

On 2018-04-04 01:23, Marika Konings wrote:
> Reminder: Action item #2: CCWG members and participants to review
> proposed work plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are
> not able to commit to the work plan as outlined (see attached).
> FROM: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> DATE: Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 16:11
> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's
> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Meeting
> Dear All,
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD
> Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Please take particular note of the
> following action item (see also this related message:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2018-March/000844.html
> [1]):
>  	* Action item #2: CCWG members and participants to review proposed
> work plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are not able to
> commit to the work plan as outlined (see attached).
> Best regards,
> Marika
> =============
> _These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through
> the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are
> provided separately and are posted on the wiki at:
> __https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw_ [2]_._
> _Roll Call:_
>  	* Attendance will be taken from audio bridge and Webex
> 	* Remember to state your name before speaking for transcription
> purposes and to mute your microphone to avoid background noise.
> _SOI/DOI updates:_
>  	* Erika Mann - DOI update forthcoming
> _Exchange with external experts:  Russell Haworth, Nominet_
> Why did Nominet originally set up the Nominet Trust?
>  	* As a ccTLD, Nominet has been very much focused on public benefit.
> Decision made by the Board that in order to meet the public benefit
> goals, an independent organization should be created to take surplus
> and look at how to allocate grants via the trust to individual
> companies / organizations to do effectively public good with a
> technology bias. Could have done it at the time in-house or set up a
> trust - benefit of a trust, at least in the UK, there are some tax
> advantages. This may be distinct from ICANN situation as it deals with
> a lump sum, compared to regular fund allocation by Nominet. Trust set
> up in 2008 - relationship between Nominet and Nominet Trust, Nominet
> provided 3 million pounds per year. Board of Nominet Trust - board of
> trustees, a number of which could be from Nominet but independent so
> that it could develop its own strategy and decide how to allocate
> grants. Built itself out over the years to be the leading UK social
> tech investor. Started out providing grants to smaller organizations
> which had a big impact. Over the years, a number of mechanisms were
> developed that companies receiving investment need to measure social
> impact. Also working with larger charitable organizations.
> Question (Q): how do the foundation mission relates to the Nominet
> mission? Area of social tech is very broad, wanted to focus the trust
> on increasing digital skills, security and getting more people online.
> The more people online, the more people theoretically would want a .uk
> name, similarly to keeping secure name space, more vibrant online
> community. CCWG may have some limitations with regards to focus /
> mission due to fiduciary / legal requirements. Did Nominet have any
> similar limitations? Legal independence between Nominet and the
> Nominet Trust.
>  	* Nominet wants to evolve as an organization. Has reached a level of
> maturity - looking at diversifying revenue streams beyond domains.
> Goal is to positively impact society - connected, inclusive and secure
> are objectives. Why was decision made to bring the trust inside? Trust
> has done amazing things, Nominet has given 40 million pounds. Is
> leading tech investor / grant giver in the UK. Has bigger plans and
> ideas - Nominet Trust to evolve its strategy to impact the social
> technology space beyond what Nominet is focused on. They will now look
> into brining in other partners and growing the trust - likely to
> change branding / name. Nominet to look for skills in-house to
> appropriate funds and to impact society in line with its mission.
> Wanted to have more control how funds are appropriated which is more
> difficult if there are two separate legal structures place. 

> Q: Can Nominet also allocate funds outside of the UK or only inside of
> the UK?
> Principally looking at the UK, but obviously Internet is international
> so they may look at projects outside of the UK.
> Q: What are the lessons learned from the external trust that will help
> brining this in-house and brining it closer to the Nominet mission?
> Better insight into what types of projects have the most social
> impact, as well as type of organizations that were more successful.
> Experience build up in the team that was codified via a number of
> different applications and tools. Opportunity to learn from Nominet
> Trust impact and how to apply these to the three Nominet pillars.
> Brought in one of the Nominet Trust employees into Nominet to bring
> some of the knowledge and expertise in-house. Different financial
> instruments that can be considered - Trust only focused on grants, but
> Nominet can now also look at other debts instruments (equity, etc.)
> Mission for grant allocation should be the first step, especially if a
> separate organization is created. Should have cross-over with ICANN
> but equally have its own objectives, otherwise you will not be able to
> fairly allocate funds. Independent evaluators could ensure that no
> undue pressure is applied?
> Q: What have you learned in relation to fund allocation, evaluation?
> If core mission is not fund allocation, should outsourcing be an
> option? At the same time, cost may indicate that in-house is a better
> option? Two principal reasons for brining in-house: without having a
> separate board, Nominet can more closely control the dial-up and
> dial-down for how funds are allocated, also no separate infrastructure
> needed as it can be managed in-house; also allows Nominet the
> flexibility to allocate more or less to one of the pillars (quantum
> and cadence control).
> Q: how many grants can a Project Officer manage? How much does this
> number depend on the size of the individual grants? Nominet did 3
> million pounds a year - overall 10 staff, 4-5 evaluating projects and
> probably looking at 20 grants a year. Around 500 applications a year,
> around 20 grants given of between 250,000 and below.
> Q: what was the main argument for insourcing the trust? 1) cost base
> of having a separate governance structure (note that Board of trustees
> was unpaid), 2) wanted to tie fund allocation to Nominet three
> pillars, 3) people in the Nominet organization felt connected to
> public benefit.
> Q: who makes final decision on fund allocation? In Nominet Trust, each
> grant was granted by the Trust Board. In new situation, below certain
> amount it would be CEO, above certain amount, Nominet Board. Working
> through a framework establishing criteria for fund allocation. In
> ICANN world this might be considered interference if it would have an
> ultimate say in fund allocation and ability to change recommendations
> of independent evaluators. Note that framework should set clear
> guidance in that regard.
> CCWG may need to review whether mechanisms being considered, if there
> needs to be an evaluation board in case conflict arises?
> ACTION ITEM #1: CCWG to share any follow up questions it may have for
> Russell with the mailing list.
> Q: Can ICANN oversee / allocate funds outside the US? Other than
> purely operational and logistical considerations, there wouldn’t be
> any issues for ICANN to oversee/monitor grants anywhere in the world.
> _Review of the revised Work plan_:
>  	* See message circulated by Erika yesterday
> (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2018-March/000844.html
> [1]). Based on the target of delivering an Initial Report by ICANN61,
> a revised work plan has been developed which would require weekly CCWG
> meetings. CCWG members and participants are expected to indicate if
> they are not in a position to commit to this revised work plan.
> ACTION ITEM #2: CCWG members and participants to review proposed work
> plan and communicate by Wednesday 4 April if they are not able to
> commit to the work plan as outlined.
> _Confirm next steps & next meeting_
>  	* Next week’s meeting will be tentatively scheduled for next
> Thursday 5 April at 14.00 UTC, but whether the call will go ahead will
> depend on availability of EIB/European Commission experts. Their
> availability may not be confirmed until early next week. Staff will
> confirm as soon as possible whether the call will go ahead or not.
> _Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
> _Email: __marika.konings at icann.org__  _
> _ _
> _Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
> _Find out more about the GNSO by taking our __interactive
> courses[learn.icann.org]_ [3]_ and visiting the __GNSO Newcomer
> pages[gnso.icann.org]_ [4]_. _
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2018-March/000844.html
> [2]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=
> [3]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=e-8dRjobntLvqTwayqpOH81Qs4i8fLXQmkFmsHCWRcI&s=xXC9hbn1-qh5B9Nt37Y__jCvR4rVTsL-oLpp3rpO6bE&e=
> [4]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=e-8dRjobntLvqTwayqpOH81Qs4i8fLXQmkFmsHCWRcI&s=S8kNnRzMiw_GumJR97Tj_Pj4OEML8ytRlXrUpWlRKSc&e=
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list