<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">How are we connecting
to the call today, Adobe or what?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-03-27 13:39, Daniel Dardailler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:24a80ba40523fcbc0475b18f72d42c02@w3.org">Hello Marika,
all
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
In any case, I came to this conclusion after the recent board
report and here's my rationales:
<br>
<br>
- ICANN needs to control closely all spending, before any
disbursement, so at evaluation time if not before (strategic
calls) and before final payment
<br>
- 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)
<br>
- 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"
<br>
- 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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
Talk to you on Thursday.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2018-03-19 15:45, Marika Konings wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear All,
<br>
<br>
Please find attached some high-level notes from the new gTLD
Auction
<br>
Proceeds CCWG meeting that took place on Sunday 11 March at
ICANN61.
<br>
You are encouraged to review the recording / transcript of the
meeting
<br>
for the full record (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691">https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691</a>
<br>
[1]). The next meeting has been scheduled for THURSDAY 29 MARCH
AT
<br>
14.00 UTC.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
<br>
Marika
<br>
<br>
NOTES & ACTION ITEMS – NEW GTLD AUCTION PROCEEDS CCWG
MEETING –
<br>
SUNDAY 11 MARCH 2018
<br>
<br>
_These high-level notes are designed to help the CCWG navigate
through
<br>
the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for
the
<br>
transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are
<br>
provided separately and are posted on the wiki at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw">https://community.icann.org/x/DLHDAw</a> [2]._
<br>
<br>
Brief intro provided concerning background and objective of CCWG
(see
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2</a>
<br>
[3])
<br>
<br>
* Working closely together with Board liaison to minimize
risk of
<br>
rejection of eventual recommendations
<br>
* Legal and fiduciary constraints will need to be factored
into any
<br>
recommendations that the CCWG puts forward
<br>
<br>
_Board Liaison Input_
<br>
<br>
Board committed to be proactive but doesn’t want to be
proscriptive
<br>
<br>
Board discussed today what it would expect to see back.
Preliminary
<br>
thoughts that Board has, not intended to be proscriptive.
Fiduciary
<br>
obligations and Board to employ due diligence when it comes to
assets
<br>
as well as mechanism used to allocate auction proceeds.
Preliminary
<br>
principles:
<br>
<br>
• Tranches in a period of years, not all at once (e.g. 3-4
year
<br>
period) to make sure that mechanisms are in place and working
<br>
properly. May consider max. amount for which board needs to be
get
<br>
involved, but not decided yet.
<br>
<br>
• Proceeds need to be used in service of the ICANN mission.
<br>
‘In service” provides some flexibility, but it is not wide open
<br>
either. Not used for operational purposes.
<br>
<br>
• Mechanism needs to be efficient and effective. Should
<br>
encompass the expertise and scale necessary to minimize overhead
and
<br>
to maximize the impact.
<br>
<br>
• The mechanism has to be capable of acting globally,
evaluate
<br>
proposals from around the world, and administer and oversee on a
<br>
global level.
<br>
<br>
• The mechanism needs to be accountable - need to have
<br>
disbursement based on written timelines that establish clear
<br>
milestones for release and accountability for grant recipients.
<br>
<br>
• Mechanism needs to have processes in place to evaluate and
<br>
quantify the impact of projects - fit for purpose, impact
measurement.
<br>
<br>
<br>
• ICANN needs to have established processes to evaluate the
<br>
mechanism and its effectiveness
<br>
<br>
• Mechanism needs to ensure that we can be transparent with
the
<br>
community and applicants with regards to status of various
projects,
<br>
evaluation criteria, how funds are used, and these are achieving
their
<br>
goals.
<br>
<br>
Questions:
<br>
<br>
* Not for operational purposes used for ICANN, but there
will be an
<br>
operational cost to disbursing. The latter would come out of the
<br>
auction proceeds.
<br>
* On the topic of alignment with the ICANN Mission, since
the new
<br>
bylaws expressly made content and services using domain names,
would
<br>
projects that e.g. promote content or control of content be
considered
<br>
against the ICANN mission? See some of the examples that the
Board
<br>
recently provided. Content control is not within ICANN’s mission
so
<br>
it would be difficult to see how any project focusing on content
would
<br>
be in service of the mission.
<br>
* Once you know the duration, you may also deduct spending
per
<br>
project. Many ways to disburse the funds.
<br>
* One decision to consider is whether there will be a few
substantial
<br>
projects funded that make a tangible difference, or whether it
will be
<br>
potentially hundreds of small projects that might have very
local
<br>
impact.
<br>
<br>
_Exchange of views with experts _
<br>
<br>
* Update provided on the status of outreach to external
experts (see
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2</a>
<br>
[3])
<br>
* See input provided by Sam & Xavier. General
reflection: some of the
<br>
questions may need more specifics in order to provide helpful
answers.
<br>
ICANN will always have an obligation to exercise its oversight
and
<br>
respect its fiduciary duties.
<br>
<br>
Q & A
<br>
<br>
* SEVF mentioned as an example for how auction proceeds
could be
<br>
invested and give continued returns. Out of scope for CCWG to
consider
<br>
venture funds, should be moved to bottom of list.
<br>
* Coordination should be important feature of any mechanism
chosen.
<br>
Would appreciate further input on that. Agreement and details on
<br>
division of roles & responsibilities is also key.
<br>
* Input provided seems to support favoring model #1. Don’t
judge
<br>
too early - need to make sure that all external input is
reviewed and
<br>
considered.
<br>
* Community involvement / ICANN is important, especially
when you
<br>
look at allocation of auction proceeds and the need for those to
be in
<br>
service of the mission. Difficult to see how external
evaluations with
<br>
no relationship to ICANN would be able to make a definite
assessment.
<br>
<br>
* To reduce overhead / staff costs, you may need to look
into
<br>
increasing funds allocated per project.
<br>
<br>
_Nominet input _
<br>
<br>
* Nominet trust was set up over 10 years ago to put excess
funds to
<br>
good use. Appropriate funds on a yearly basis, which resulted in
to
<br>
tax benefit. Managed independently by a Board of trustees.
Nominet did
<br>
not sit on the Board of trustees but did provide oversight to
ensure
<br>
good corporate governance. Leading social tech fund in the UK.
Are now
<br>
re-evaluation how to deliver public benefit - trust now ready
for
<br>
attracting external investors. Nominet now takes the public
benefit
<br>
approach in-house - hiring a team to direct the profits
accordingly.
<br>
Part of the reason for bringing it in house is because Nominet
<br>
purpose, to be able to be more directive how to support Nominet
<br>
objectives. Key question is what is the purpose? Could result in
<br>
putting it in different posts, for example. What is the
ambition?
<br>
<br>
Questions: what were the decisions that led to creating the
trust and
<br>
what guided the decision to spin of the trust and bring the
public
<br>
benefit work into Nominet? Initially no expertise in-house so
trust
<br>
was deemed best approach. Now after many years of experience
able to
<br>
carry out this role in-house and make sure that profits are
directed
<br>
in line with Nominet’s objective.
<br>
<br>
ACTION ITEM: Invite Nominet to join future new gTLD Auction
Proceeds
<br>
CCWG meeting to provide further insights and allow for
additional Q &
<br>
A.
<br>
<br>
_Next meeting_
<br>
<br>
Next meeting has been scheduled for THURSDAY 29 MARCH AT 14.00
UTC.
<br>
The co-chairs expect to share a revised timeline for CCWG
<br>
consideration shortly.
<br>
<br>
_MARIKA KONINGS_
<br>
<br>
_Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
<br>
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _
<br>
<br>
_Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a> _
<br>
<br>
_ _
<br>
<br>
_Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO_
<br>
<br>
_Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
[4]
<br>
and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [5]. _
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Links:
<br>
------
<br>
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691">https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647691</a>
<br>
[2]
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="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=">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=</a>
<br>
[3]
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20-%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1520888233000&api=v2</a>
<br>
[4] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso">http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso</a>
<br>
[5]
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers">http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>