[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items from today's meeting

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu Apr 12 23:35:30 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting. Per some of the comments made during the call, the work plan (attached) has been updated to reflect that the meeting on 26 April will be dedicated to reviewing the input received to date and identifying what, if any, further information is required. Of course, that should not prevent you from reviewing the input received to date (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B) and start that discussion on the mailing list.

As a reminder, the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC. Our guest speaker will be Marc D'Hooge from the European Investment Bank.

Best regards,


Notes & Action Items – new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on 12 April 2018

These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw<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=>.

Roll Call
·         Attendance will be taken from the webex room
·         Audio only: Tony Harris
·         Please remember to state your name before speaking for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise.

Welcome - SOI/DOI update

Exchange with external experts – Sarah Berg, Ponsonby Partners
·         See input provided input[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_79439109_Sarah-2520Berg-2520-2D-2520ICANN-2520CCWG.AP-2520BERG-2520Responses-25203.2018.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1520436722000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=IhkMCjODlvZmN72a2cpp5xkMzgH-96zDmsmwLyR7O2c&s=2Ir12kCCOpkPbmZwctKnSYP6R88xClcF1LlYsCKbDrc&e=> in writing
·         Short introduction - see also information shared on the mailing list regarding Sarah's background and current relationship with ICANN
·         Advising ICANN staff but hopefully the information that is shared is very much the same that Sarah has shared on other occasions
·         Has extensive experience in advising non-profits in their charitable operations. Works currently for the Pew Charitable Trust - over 70 years of grant-making experience and evaluating.
·         ICANN has opportunity to create and shape something with lasting impact
·         Amount of funds is still in play, regardless it is still important to consider cost, control, objectives, resources and competence
·         Most mechanisms are structured to sunset at some point in time
·         Need to consider: time, energy input, experience being used, connection and ties of current and potential partners, money.
·         Temporary funds, even though that may sound short, is not necessarily a short timeline. Needs to be thought in place how funds are disbursed and prudently distributed.
·         Objectives: mission of governing body is key, but also important to defend what within the mission is important to fund. Mission and objective will drive how you are going to structure the rest of your projects. What are your goals, objectives, scope of work and how do you consider success? What is the role that ICANN wants to play in the charitable landscape and how do you want to play out your mission? What are the needs that ICANN as an entity sees in this environment? Are there gap areas that need to be addressed? What are the changes you want to make, and what do you not want to fund? See for example how this is defined at the Gates Foundation.
·         What would make the CCWG happy with its progress as it is also investing time/resources? What impact do you intend to make and how you are going to measure it?
·         Responses to these questions will also give insight into the level of control you want/need to have? For example, who are decision makers and provide fiduciary oversight? Is it the Board, a new Board that oversees the mechanism? How do you bring in the multi-stakeholder aspect of ICANN in fund allocation / prioritization?
·         Who are the leaders managing control?
·         Fund risk, reputational risk - you will need experts to advice on those aspects, so engagement with experts is important.
·         Competence - type of investment projects, different options to be considered. Different types of fund disbursements - grants, seed investment, donor, etc.
·         Cost: direct & indirect costs, will depend on mechanism chosen. How you utilize your resources, projects and where you want to leverage project? Administrative expenses - some use 5% of operational budget, but it can also be higher than that based on the needs, mission of the organization.


How to leave enough structure to disburse funds, but then let ICANN get back to its mission?

  *   A lot of organizations can be in a similar position where they may have one-off disbursement. Structure is still the same even if it includes a sunset provision, still need efficient / effective structure that allows for the impact that you want to make.

Disbursement will be confined by ICANN's mission and does not allow support many charitable projects - how to define scope environment in this context?

  *   Step back and given the mission you have, what are the gaps that you are seeing, where are the specific needs within the landscape that you are working in that may be underfunded or specific issues that do not have the attention needed. Explore what that looks like and see if you can come up with specific funding areas, which may be completely new with no one else in that space. What are the pressure points, what are the needs and how can you meet those needs.

Should we more specific about the type of awards that can be provided?

  *   Purpose of CCWG is to advice how disbursement of funds should occur, no decision on who would receive the funds or what that process would look like. It is important to be aware of who is in that landscape and what would that look like, factoring in ICANN's role and place in the environment.

Levels of control - what is your opinion with regards to which mechanism is best suited for appropriate levels of control?

  *   Fiduciary oversight, whomever is responsible for that, that is where a lot of the control occurs. In ICANN, Board has final say and responsibility. What would it look like within this scenario? What is the Board's engagement, no matter what scenario you use? If you have a foundation, Board would likely still be involved with representation of Foundation Board - that might provide independence and oversight? If you move it to another granting organization, you may not have financial oversight but you have granting oversight. It really depends on what level of control you want, who makes the final decision and what is the role they are expected to play? How is the multistakeholder aspect reflected in the structure? Could be part of the evaluations team, for example.

There are costs involved in any mechanism that is chosen. Costs associated with normal grant cycle, there may be specific ICANN costs. As such, not possible to give a specific number. Budget is going to depend on objectives - if you decide what is concerned success and how to make leveraged impact, that will decide how you utilise the funds and how the oversight of those funds come into play.

Need to be clear about what we are going to accomplish and how we are going to measure success. Challenge is that allocation of funds is limited through operational mission as funds cannot be allocated to topics already addressed through operational mission. How are others able or supposed to address those gaps? Inherent conflict that needs to get resolved.

ICANN's mission is purely operational, if we identify a gap, it needs to be something that requires to be solved. It may be figuring what seed money can go into another aspect that is forming on the horizon that ICANN can invest in but necessarily needs to manage. PEW selects projects that can be done within 5 years from 40 different topics. Is not necessarily scope creep - something that can be done for a certain period of time, if it doesn't succeed or meet criteria of success, you no longer fund it.

Expenses relating to impact - expenses you incur such as administrative expenses (staff costs), type of grants made, travel (related to projects funded - evaluation), reporting structures. Indirect costs - executive oversight, meetings / travels for those that make decisions. All these need to be built into the overall budget. Data exists on the size of foundations and the expense ratio (5-10%). Is there any itemized info available or only in the aggregate?

Are there any examples of other organizations that have a narrow mission but where the granting mission may have gone broader? In some instances where there would be an entire new entity, with a separate board.

Next steps / next meeting

  *   See email circulated by Erika just prior to this meeting providing some input on recent mailing list discussions - please review.
  *   Planning for ICANN62 – a request has been submitted for a high interest topic session that would allow the CCWG to present and discuss its Initial Report and recommendations. This request will now need to be considered by the SO/AC Planning Committee for ICANN62.
  *   CCWG needs to start considering what else is needed, if anything, to be able to make a determination on which mechanism is preferred. May need another call to determine whether we have enough facts or only opinions?  Everyone encouraged to start discussions on the mailing list as timeline is very tight.

Action item: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list concerning input provided by external experts (see https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B) and any potential gaps that may need to be addressed.

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180412/bd658d62/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/applefile
Size: 11480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180412/bd658d62/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Work plan and approach for dealing with charter questions - 12 April 2018.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 382464 bytes
Desc: Work plan and approach for dealing with charter questions - 12 April 2018.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20180412/bd658d62/Workplanandapproachfordealingwithcharterquestions-12April2018-0001.doc>

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list