Content Comparison

Notes/ Action Items

1. Roll Call

• Please state your name for transcription purposes and keep microphones on mute when not speaking
• Roll call will be taken from AC

2. Welcome - DOI

• Note that the review of charter question #4 and a presentation on investment management are planned for the meeting on 10 August

3. Review responses to charter question #7 and discuss next steps (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-RZQTTHJ6) 

• Majority of respondents support not having ICANN org responsible for the solicitation and evaluation of proposals
• Responses split though on whether it should be a newly to be created entity that is responsible or whether an existing entity should be used for solicitation and evaluation of proposals.
• Majority of respondents support the involvement of ICANN the community in the solicitation and evaluation of proposals.
• The overall timeframe of the effort may also play a factor in deciding whether or not a new entity should be created or an existing entity should be used.
• Question may also be whether an existing entity or entities should be used. It could prove more challenging though.
• May also be a question for experts to provide input on.  
• Consider a follow up survey to solicit further input on whether a new entity is to be created or whether an existing entity or entities are to be used.
• Solicitation may be more forward - could be through online applications, many organisations are well versed in this. Evaluation may be more challenging and could benefit from the involvement of multiple organisations.
• Should also consider supporting giving grants to existing organizations that are not necessarily project related. In the form of donations.
• Will need input on what is possible while respecting legal and fiduciary requirements. There are other foundations that manage funds for other entities but need to know whether that is allowed.
• May be premature to decide now on one or multiple organisations.
• No need to reinvent the wheel, there are numerous entitities who have done this and done it well. If ICANN is to create a new entity, it may create more time and effort than it actually would take to disburse the funds. Also risk of 'political bias'.
• Need to be sure that trust exists whatever entity is used. Expertise and competence should be key factors.
• Maybe consider parallel with allocation of IP addresses - give critical resource to parties that are trusted.
• Ask from legal and financial point of view how these structures could look: internal structure - new unit, within ICANN, externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work, externally - working with already existing entities. This latter option could also be in combination with the other two options. This would likely take the form of a straw man / high level approach, ideally also with some numbers to give an idea from a budgetary perspective. Numbers could also be checked with existing funds to get a sense of what it might take from a resource perspective. 5-10% rule could be applied on funding costs. ny external foundation work with donations on a 'tax-exempt' status. However you only get/keep your 'tax-exempt' status provided you donate at least 90-95 % of your incoming funds.

ICANN staff:

• Premature to start talking to external organisations - need further details before doing so.
• To evaluate internal vs. external would also need to get insight into costs of creating this internally. Externally it would likely have a fixed % of the funds that are to be managed. Internally the costs are a big unknown. This question needs to be answered very early on.

Action item #1: Ask ICANN Finance and Legal to provide their input on the different options that have been discussed (internal structure - new unit, within ICANN, externally - new built entity that would only focus on this work, externally - working with already existing entities. This latter option could also be in combination with the other two options.). To be reviewed and discussed during meeting on 24 August.

4. Review responses to survey on objectives of fund allocation & discuss next steps

• See mind map circulated and result of the survey (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-July/000343.html)
• Staff to work with leadership team on clustering of examples and reviewing overall objectives
• CCWG encouraged to provide input as well as consider definition of terms used in the objectives such as Open Internet.
• Focus seems to be on gTLDs - may need to be broadened.
• CCWG will also need to review whether there are any objectives that should be discarded at this stage. Consider whether it is possible to identify priority areas within an overall objective.

Action item #2: Staff to work with leadership team to identify clusters of examples and review where further defining of objectives may be needed.

5. Reminder – please identify questions for external experts (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/152k_W8Wkp7XecejOutuYbCwAITwgfU3uHyzZEVgznjA/edit[docs.google.com])

Action item #3: CCWG to add further questions to google doc, specifically focusing on the charter questions that need to be addressed before moving into the next phase.