[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC.

Daniel Dardailler danield at w3.org
Mon Apr 23 17:15:59 UTC 2018

Thanks Marika. I started adding my input, and I used Comments to explain 

On 2018-04-23 17:12, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
> In follow up to action item #1 and #2, the preamble and example
> documents have been uploaded as google docs to allow everyone to
> collaborate on updating these documents to address the input that has
> been provided by the ICANN Board.
> For the preamble, please see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit?usp=sharing
> [1]. Note that in the first column you will find the input provided by
> the ICANN Board to facilitate your review.
> For the project examples, please see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE/edit?usp=sharing
> [2]. Note that this version incorporates the suggestions that were
> sent by Daniel to the list on 19/4.
> Everyone, but especially those that volunteered to work on this during
> the meeting, are encouraged to include their proposed comments and/or
> edits BY MONDAY 7 MAY AT THE LATEST. Should there be a need / desire
> to schedule a separate call to work on this, please let staff know and
> we can assist you as needed.
> Best regards,
> Marika
> FROM: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> DATE: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 17:15
> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] notes and action items from the CCWG
> Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC.
> Dear all,
> Please find below some high-level notes and action items from the CCWG
> Auction Proceeds meeting that took place on 19 April at 14:00 UTC.
> _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_ [3]_._
>  	* Attendance will be taken from the webex room
> 	* Audio only: Kavouss Arasteh, Tony Harris, Xavier Calvez
> 	* Please remember to state your name before speaking for
> transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking
> to avoid background noise.
> No updates
> Draft proposal made by Marika: The letter has been shared with the
> CCWG as an early draft. The group is advised to review the letter,
> comments are welcome. A next draft will be prepared, following
> comments by the group. There is an opportunity to further discuss this
> during the next call.
> Preliminary comments have been submitted by Daniel Dardailler.
> Regarding the preamble: He advises to give more detail on what “good
> internet” means.
> Reminder by Erika on our approach: Basic idea was not to identify a
> philosophical general approach. In working with the board, we now have
> a much more precise terminology which captures the grey areas. The
> projects will be in service with the mission, that is the basic idea.
> We are not dropping the preamble completely. But we should not
> continue to work on it forever, and it would be good to send it to the
> implementation team
> Marilyn supports the intent behind Daniel’s comments. Good amount of
> work has been done. Focus by board liaisons is much appreciated.
> However, we are also writing for the broader community, to make sure
> they understand. Glad to hear we are not discarding our work.
> Important to keep it. It is difficult to explain to a business person
> what “in service of icann’s mission means”. The board is very
> close to what ICANN’s mission is.
> Sylvia Cadena agrees that we need to continue to work on the preamble.
> Erika confirmed that a careful balancing act is needed here. Once we
> send out the next letter to the Board, we will include a status as
> well. Draft of the newsletter and draft accompanying email to be
> shared with the group, before it is sent out to the SO/AC leaders.
> Sylvia Cadena and Marilyn Cade volunteered in the chat to continue
> working on the preamble.
>  _ACTION ITEM #1: _
>  Volunteers who want to work on further reviewing the preamble are
> kindly invited to step forwards.
>  Next draft of the preamble should be ready in 2 weeks time, by 3 May
> 2018.
> Daniel mentioned that sharing a document one day ahead of the meeting
> is not advisable.
>  _ACTION ITEM #2: _
>  The group is kindly advised to review the list of examples by Tuesday
> next week, when the leadership team will meet. Thus staff can review
> the input received, and send an updated version on Wednesday to the
> mailing list.
> Volunteers: Marilyn Cade, Mary Uduma, Vanda Scartezini.
>  ACTION ITEM #3: Staff potentially organise a call with this small
> group.
> Review as well the comments made by Daniel and Elliott. Staff will
> share a new draft, based on the comments received. To be further
> discussed next week.
> Page 4, item 4. Written comments will be provided by Marilyn on the
> list. Alternative wording will be suggested where this will be used as
> an example. Suggestion: “Development” to to be replaced with
> “engagement in such activity”.
> Erika sent a short introduction to Marc to the mailing list, and the
> work he has been doing.
> The CCWG is searching for a mechanism/funding model. One-off amount,
> obtained via auctions.
> Our aim is to have a recommendation on the funding model by June.
> Group is particularly interested on how cooperation/oversight can work
> between 2 institutions.
> Short introduction by Marc D’Hooge. Confirmation that the call is
> recorded.
> Working at EIB since 20 years, EIB is active in innovation finance
> since late 90ies. Interesting component added: working together with
> the European Commission on innovative projects. The cooperation with
> the European institutions. EIB has the financial expertise, support
> needed by promoters to the market. Combine grants and financial
> instruments in an efficient way.
> If you do not own the expertise on the objective setting side or the
> financial side, you need to look for partners, that focus on the
> concrete financial support.  ICANN is not a bank, if you would like to
> bring the money to the market, in line with investment objectives, and
> link to connectivity, you need to look for a partner who is able to
> respond to the business needs that you would like to drive finance.
> Marilyn Cade : ICANN  has a responsibility to maintain its tax status
> and avoid trust issues.
> Note in the chat from Nadira: I remember ICANN financial advisor said
> that having return on the proceed doesn't comply with ICANN status
> The commission had the idea to develop alongside the grants, a
> financial instrument, where the money invested by the EC not only
> generated returns, but also where the returns and initial investments
> can be recycled in new projects of the same nature.  EIB now also have
> projects that combine the grant aspect and the financial aspects, for
> instance for breakthrough projects in for instance the connectivity
> range, or energy.
> Vanda Scartezini has a question regarding the grants distributed in
> Europe.
> Marc confirmed that the work of EIB encompasses all member states and
> also countries around Europe (e.g. Ukraine, nordic countries, Turkey
> …). Work can be for one particular country, or for multiple
> countries. Innovation/finance can be done all over the world, but
> either the project or the promoter needs to be European.
> Erika mentioned that the main idea is to have a one-off fund, shut
> down afterwards. Erika invites Marc to explain the tensions, or what
> he would see as really important in terms of a merger between 2
> entities. In case the CCWG would make a recommendation to work with a
> different entity, what would be the main issues?
> Marc: reason to look for a partner, is to do things on your behalf,
> that you cannot do so yourself. The bank is owned by the member states
> of the European Commission, so they are closely aligned. You want to
> keep control on what the other partner is doing. EIB has a delegation
> agreement with the commission all the operational work, related to
> finding and financing the projects that comply with the objectives set
> out by the EC. The steering Committee convenes twice a year, and
> steers the business development of the common cooperation’s scheme
> within a given budget period. You  need to build trust between the
> institutions. This took time, almost 2 years.
> In terms of bringing finance to the market, all in line with what the
> commission is also spending on the grants, for projects that have an
> economic return. These are complementary, not competitive.
> Marc volunteered to share a presentation on how it works, the
> mechanism behind it, and an evaluation report: the commission has
> delegated the full operational responsibility of bringing the funds to
> the market, including negotiation, monitoring, disbursement,
> evaluation …. Needs to be in line with the policy objectives of the
> research and development programme.
> The bank is existing since 60 years, and we are in business since 30
> years.
> Samantha Eisner has a question on the mechanism between EIB and the
> government in disbursing the information. What are the governance
> tools used? Audits? Regular reporting? To check that the EIB is
> staying within the boundaries of what you have been entrusted to do?
> Marc: what can we finance? That is clearly specified. Includes for
> instance also the research done in institutions, based on thoughts by
> the commission that wanted to promote innovation. Not only via grants,
> but also via bigger amounts. To ensure the strategy is aligned there
> is a framework legal basis. The 2 documents are aligned from a policy
> point of view. Throughout the programme, EIB is free to invest in
> projects that are in compliance with the objectives. There is a big
> trust basis by the EC.  The commission has a seat on the EIB Board.
> Erika asking about administration costs. Some say 5% is the average.
> Marc cannot give full details, however there are 2 types of revenues:
>  	* EIB charges client on all transactions a small margin, covering
> working costs
> 	* The risk revenues on transactions  go to the Commission. What the
> commission gives back is a kind of fee remuneration which consists of
> 2 big parts: admin compensation of the whole programme, which also
> includes audit and evaluation. Second component is based on the
> performance. They have milestones, and more money is received, the
> higher the milestone that was reached. (1% per annum based on the
> money invested by the Commission - 7 year period)
> This is something the bank can accept as a sustainable activity on a
> long term. Commission can perpetuate the scheme based on return on
> investments from previous schemes.
>  	* 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 #4: All encouraged to start discussion on the mailing list
> concerning input provided by external experts (see
> https://community.icann.org/x/BSW8B[community.icann.org] [4]) and any
> potential gaps that may need to be addressed.
> Best regards,
> Joke Braeken
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
> joke.braeken at icann.org
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] [5]
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook:
> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com] [6]
> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] [7]
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrlLk17owAx5dmm1XjD_X-LGlRkVnjKtYw5bh8kDKzw/edit?usp=sharing
> [2]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16YqlNWqQxHX-va0yIk9wwt9ZeUdVMtJiOkwHim0DSCE/edit?usp=sharing
> [3]
> 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=
> [4]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_BSW8B&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=_yYCXQ7V5fbxqX_5dQUnotA95CYa2hQgmCRPrP7dw1I&s=UUsceCGBf-ja1dMzLECUedCuNeNv9JPlrwYoZuXW9_c&e=
> [5]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=8nMIfNYVK2n_WF7wQcAyodtErFawAJnfd41Qpis6Df0&e=
> [6]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=yg6wy7unhj4Ge6wTGuMAiembs52aORNpG6EnMxhvRp0&e=
> [7]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=WzQ9g3cAyypZku6HEOq5byRXTymaBd9cffT9MrWnM9E&s=csaGugkE5Eo4-Owan2aKfkf5Ntn1k4ukf5Pv2Qnww1k&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