[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items

Thu Mar 29 13:00:36 UTC 2018

How are we connecting to the call today, Adobe or what?

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-03-27 13:39, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180329/0454e1ca/attachment-0001.html>