[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items

Thu Mar 29 13:45:44 UTC 2018

+1 Daniel

This was actually my response to the survey that was sent at the early stages of this working group

-----Original Message-----
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:39 PM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Notes and action items

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=152088
> 8233000&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=152088
> 8233000&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.o
> rg_x_DLHDAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4
> I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=4zHolvsBo
> 6lsC2fsFnhbQd0l8fVzyqdj0t9oV6_NWjM&s=-vuUpZTVZXrpFcq3-nA--Ltl_ESCT
> 71X4cBhx3axkEY&e=
> [3]
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431895/CCWG%20AP%20
> -%2011%20March%202018%20updated.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=15
> 20888233000&api=v2 [4] http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso
> [5]
> http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/po
> licy-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