[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items

Tue Mar 27 17:39:28 UTC 2018

Hello Marika, all

as I mentioned during the meeting in PR, I am of the opinion that we 
have heard enough arguments to now select one option, namely number 1, 
full in-house ICANN grant department, and revert the logic: try to find 
and alleviate the reasons not to do it this way.

I understand that some may think it's too early to come to a conclusion, 
and I'm not asking for that, just to change our modus operandi and 
target a particular option.

In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board report and 
here's my rationales:

  - ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any disbursement, 
so at evaluation time if not before (strategic calls) and before final 
payment
  - ICANN wants the reach to be global and also wants its global 
community to be in the loop at various levels (orientation, selections, 
evaluation committees, etc)
  - ICANN wants to minimize the overhead (the granting mgnt overhead plus 
the executive/legal/oversight overhead if done outside ICANN) and 
already knows how to account internally for a separate in-house "branch"
  - ICANN wants the new framework to be accountable, transparent, to 
evaluate the impact, to quantify, etc. All the things that ICANN is 
already used/pushed to do better and better.

I don't think we'll find a external foundation that meets all those 
requirements, and creating a new organization will seriously raise the 
overhead costs and the risks that it is not considered a temporary 
framework. The only downside that I can imagine with option 1 is from 
people that really really don't want ICANN.org to grow staff-wise, but 
this will happen in any case even in a mixed option, just to implement a 
tight oversight (which is not going to be light at all IMO).

Talk to you on Thursday.

Thanks.

On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached some high-level notes from the new gTLD Auction
> Proceeds CCWG meeting that took place on Sunday 11 March at ICANN61.
> You are encouraged to review the recording / transcript of the meeting
> for the full record (see https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691
> [1]). The next meeting has been scheduled for THURSDAY 29 MARCH AT
> 14.00 UTC.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> NOTES & ACTION ITEMS – NEW GTLD AUCTION PROCEEDS CCWG MEETING –
> SUNDAY 11 MARCH 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 [2]._
> 
> Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG (see
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2
> [3])
> 
>  	* Working closely together with Board liaison to minimize risk of
> rejection of eventual recommendations
> 	* Legal and fiduciary constraints will need to be factored into any
> recommendations that the CCWG puts forward
> 
> _Board Liaison Input_
> 
> Board committed to be proactive but doesn’t want to be proscriptive
> 
> Board discussed today what it would expect to see back. Preliminary
> thoughts that Board has, not intended to be proscriptive. Fiduciary
> obligations and Board to employ due diligence when it comes to assets
> as well as mechanism used to allocate auction proceeds. Preliminary
> principles:
> 
>  •    Tranches in a period of years, not all at once (e.g. 3-4 year
> period) to make sure that mechanisms are in place and working
> properly. May consider max. amount for which board needs to be get
> involved, but not decided yet.
> 
>  •    Proceeds need to be used in service of the ICANN mission.
> ‘In service” provides some flexibility, but it is not wide open
> either. Not used for operational purposes.
> 
>  •    Mechanism needs to be efficient and effective. Should
> encompass the expertise and scale necessary to minimize overhead and
> to maximize the impact.
> 
>  •    The mechanism has to be capable of acting globally, evaluate
> proposals from around the world, and administer and oversee on a
> global level.
> 
>  •    The mechanism needs to be accountable - need to have
> disbursement based on written timelines that establish clear
> milestones for release and accountability for grant recipients.
> 
>  •    Mechanism needs to have processes in place to evaluate and
> quantify the impact of projects - fit for purpose, impact measurement.
> 
> 
>  •    ICANN needs to have established processes to evaluate the
> mechanism and its effectiveness
> 
>  •    Mechanism needs to ensure that we can be transparent with the
> community and applicants with regards to status of various projects,
> evaluation criteria, how funds are used, and these are achieving their
> goals.
> 
> Questions:
> 
>  	* Not for operational purposes used for ICANN, but there will be an
> operational cost to disbursing. The latter would come out of the
> auction proceeds.
> 	* On the topic of alignment with the ICANN Mission, since the new
> bylaws expressly made content and services using domain names, would
> projects that e.g. promote content or control of content be considered
> against the ICANN mission? See some of the examples that the Board
> recently provided. Content control is not within ICANN’s mission so
> it would be difficult to see how any project focusing on content would
> be in service of the mission.
> 	* Once you know the duration, you may also deduct spending per
> project. Many ways to disburse the funds.
> 	* One decision to consider is whether there will be a few substantial
> projects funded that make a tangible difference, or whether it will be
> potentially hundreds of small projects that might have very local
> impact.
> 
> _Exchange of views with experts _
> 
>  	* Update provided on the status of outreach to external experts (see
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2
> [3])
> 	* See input provided by Sam & Xavier. General reflection: some of the
> questions may need more specifics in order to provide helpful answers.
> ICANN will always have an obligation to exercise its oversight and
> respect its fiduciary duties.
> 
> Q & A
> 
>  	* SEVF mentioned as an example for how auction proceeds could be
> invested and give continued returns. Out of scope for CCWG to consider
> venture funds, should be moved to bottom of list.
> 	* Coordination should be important feature of any mechanism chosen.
> Would appreciate further input on that. Agreement and details on
> division of roles & responsibilities is also key.
> 	* Input provided seems to support favoring model #1. Don’t judge
> too early - need to make sure that all external input is reviewed and
> considered.
> 	* Community involvement / ICANN is important, especially when you
> look at allocation of auction proceeds and the need for those to be in
> service of the mission. Difficult to see how external evaluations with
> no relationship to ICANN would be able to make a definite assessment.
> 
> 	* To reduce overhead / staff costs, you may need to look into
> increasing funds allocated per project.
> 
> _Nominet input _
> 
>  	* Nominet trust was set up over 10 years ago to put excess funds to
> good use. Appropriate funds on a yearly basis, which resulted in to
> tax benefit. Managed independently by a Board of trustees. Nominet did
> not sit on the Board of trustees but did provide oversight to ensure
> good corporate governance. Leading social tech fund in the UK. Are now
> re-evaluation how to deliver public benefit - trust now ready for
> attracting external investors. Nominet now takes the public benefit
> approach in-house - hiring a team to direct the profits accordingly.
> Part of the reason for bringing it in house is because Nominet
> purpose, to be able to be more directive how to support Nominet
> objectives. Key question is what is the purpose? Could result in
> putting it in different posts, for example. What is the ambition?
> 
> Questions: what were the decisions that led to creating the trust and
> what guided the decision to spin of the trust and bring the public
> benefit work into Nominet? Initially no expertise in-house so trust
> was deemed best approach. Now after many years of experience able to
> carry out this role in-house and make sure that profits are directed
> in line with Nominet’s objective.
> 
> ACTION ITEM: Invite Nominet to join future new gTLD Auction Proceeds
> CCWG meeting to provide further insights and allow for additional Q &
> A.
> 
> _Next meeting_
> 
> Next meeting has been scheduled for THURSDAY 29 MARCH AT 14.00 UTC.
> The co-chairs expect to share a revised timeline for CCWG
> consideration shortly.
> 
> _MARIKA KONINGS_
> 
> _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 [4]
> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691
> [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://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2
> [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
> [5]
> http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds