· Public charity
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Icann's mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, and to ensure the stable and secure operation of, the global internet's system of unique identifiers.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $1,153,792 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,758,656 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,604,864 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k5 grants · $95k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $527k
- $250k+2 grants · $532k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| IETF Administration LLC | $281,635 |
| Global Network Initiative | $250,000 |
| University of Oregon | $150,000 |
| Internet Systems Consortium Inc | $148,500 |
| United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs | $144,283 |
| Internet Security Research Group | $84,374 |
| United States Telecommunications Training Institute | $35,000 |
| Kongle Konsulting LLC | $25,000 |
| Global Cyber Alliance Inc | $15,000 |
| Internet Society | $10,000 |
| Team Cymru Inc | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $2.6M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $2.0M to organizations and $580k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: Development of Carbon.txt, an open-source tool for disclosing digital infrastructure energy sources using internet protocols and DNS. · Research on the impact of DNS centralization and regional differences on the security and resilience of DNS-dependent application · Development of a passive DNSSEC data collection platform (GUPPY) for diagnostic and monitoring purposes.
Stated purpose: Capacity development and research for ccRLD registrars across Africa · Grant program supporting education and network development · Capacity building and technical support for IPv6 transition in approximately 30 less developed African countries.
Stated purpose: DNS and internet governance education program tailored for indigenous Mori learners in New Zealand. · Sponsorship for FY25 Network Operators Group · Sponsorship for Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy (APIGA)
Stated purpose: Promotion and community engagement to increase awareness and adoption of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). · Fellowship · NextGen
Stated purpose: Educational outreach to promote digital inclusivity and universal acceptance through a digital platform. · sponsorship of Registration Operations Workshop (ROW). · EconClub event sponsorship
Stated purpose: Legal assistance and education for domain holders involved in ICANN UDRP disputes; and separate project providing DNS, email, IPv6, and network security training nationwide. · Sponsorship to IX Regional Forum · Escuela CEPAl Caribe sponsorship
Stated purpose: Creation of a passive DNSSEC data collection platform (GUPPY) for monitoring DNSSEC records across all gTLD and ccTLD zones. · Fellowship · NextGen
Stated purpose: Study of internet fragmentation's impact on cyberspace stability in the Black Sea region, with strategies to mitigate risks. · Kyrgyz Internet Governance Forum · 9th Armenian Internet Governance Forum
Stated purpose: Fellowship
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $493k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +182%- ISINTERNET SOCIETY5× · 2017–2025 · $625k · revenue +21%
- UTUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC6× · 2018–2025 · $263k · revenue +86%
Funded once
- TSTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%
- TCTeam Cymru Incone grant, 2023 · $50k
- KKKongle Konsulting LLCone grant, 2020 · $50k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.
To conduct pioneering research in computer science, the internet and networking, data science, machine learning, and artifical intelligence through international collaborations.
The Alliances mission is to combine technology, public policy and economics to create a sustainable system of cyber security.
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
Internet2 promotes the missions of its members by providing both leading-edge network capabilities and unique partnership opportunities that together facilitate the development, deployment and use of revolutionary internet technologies.
The mission of the center for internet security is to enhance the security readiness and response of public and private sector entities, with a commitment to excellence through collaboration.
Iacc's mission is to combat counterfeiting and piracy by promoting laws, regulations, and directives designed to render the theft of intellectual property undesirable and unprofitable.
To protect and preserve the free, innovative and decentralized architecture of the internet that has enabled it to evolve into a powerful engine for economic growth, freedom and prosperity. by channeling the strengths, cultures and stories…
Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
Making the web work for everyone. W3C brings together global stakeholders to develop open standards that enable a World Wide Web that connects and empowers humanity.
Scientific research in information processing; fostering dev. of nat'l inf. infra.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Network Initiative Inc and the most unlike its peers is Marconi Society Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 28 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNET SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds KIVA MICROFUNDS ↗
- Who funds US TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL NETWORK INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNET SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP ↗
- Who funds ACCESS NOW ↗
- Who funds CYBERGREEN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds OARC Inc ↗
- Who funds MARCONI SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds TEAM CYMRU RESEARCH NFP ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY INC ↗
- Who funds ARTHUR C CLARKE FOUNDATION OF THE UNITED STATES ↗
- Who funds Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams Inc ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Internet Society · The Ford Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.