Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds

Page History

Versions Compared

Key

This line was added.
This line was removed.
Formatting was changed.

...

Info

title	RECORDINGS

Mp3

Transcription

Note
Notes/ Action Items 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. 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[community.icann.org]) 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: [if !supportLists]• [endif]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. [if !supportLists]• [endif]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. [if !supportLists]• [endif]Mechanism needs to be efficient and effective. Should encompass the expertise and scale necessary to minimize overhead and to maximize the impact. [if !supportLists]• [endif]The mechanism has to be capable of acting globally, evaluate proposals from around the world, and administer and oversee on a global level. [if !supportLists]• [endif]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. [if !supportLists]• [endif]Mechanism needs to have processes in place to evaluate and quantify the impact of projects - fit for purpose, impact measurement. [if !supportLists]• [endif]ICANN needs to have established processes to evaluate the mechanism and its effectiveness [if !supportLists]• [endif]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[community.icann.org]) 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.

Note

Notes/ Action Items

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.

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[community.icann.org])

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:

[if !supportLists]• [endif]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.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]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.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]Mechanism needs to be efficient and effective. Should encompass the expertise and scale necessary to minimize overhead and to maximize the impact.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]The mechanism has to be capable of acting globally, evaluate proposals from around the world, and administer and oversee on a global level.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]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.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]Mechanism needs to have processes in place to evaluate and quantify the impact of projects - fit for purpose, impact measurement.

[if !supportLists]• [endif]ICANN needs to have established processes to evaluate the mechanism and its effectiveness

[if !supportLists]• [endif]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[community.icann.org])
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.

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 7

New Version 8

Key