Skip to content
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$3.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$282k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Science & Tech$2.3MInternational$1.4MEducation$1.1MPublic Benefit$263kPublic Safety & Disaster$165kCivil Rights$56kSocial Science$35kArts & Culture$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,153,792, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,758,656 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,604,864 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $95k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $527k
  • $250k+2 grants · $532k
$84,374
Median grant
8
States reached
$615M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
Team Cymru Inc$10,000
Internet Society$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%IETF Administration LLC: $282k → 10%OARC Inc: $25k → 7%The Shadowserver FND: $100k → 8%Internet Security Research Group: $84k → 10%USCISI: $25k → 14%Global Cyber Alliance Inc: $50k → 11%UNDESA: $128k → 17%Team Cymru Inc: $50k → 11%CaribNOG Inc: $15k → 13%University of Oregon: $500k → 15%Marconi Society Inc: $25k → 17%George Mason University Fndtn Inc: $50k → 6%Internet Systems Consortium Inc: $149k → 5%IETF Administration LLC: $120k → 10%OARC Inc: $24k → 7%KONGLE KONSULTING LLC: $50k → 10%Global Cyber Alliance Inc: $50k → 11%UNDESA: $122k → 17%University of Oregon Foundation: $275k → 15%INTERNET SOCIETY: $288k → 6%IETF Administration LLC: $50k → 10%Kongle Konsulting LLC: $50k → 10%Global Cyber Alliance Inc: $15k → 11%CyberGreen Institute: $50k → 17%US Telecommunications Training Institute: $88k → 14%University of Oregon: $250k → 15%Internet Society: $220k → 6%IETF Administration LLC: $50k → 10%Kongle Konsulting LLC: $25k → 10%Global Network Initiative: $250k → 17%United States Telecommunications Training Institute: $35k → 14%University of Oregon: $250k → 15%Internet Society: $100k → 6%IETF Administration LLC: $30k → 10%KONGLE KONSULTING LLC: $25k → 10%Access Now: $15k → 17%USTTI: $35k → 14%University of Oregon: $250k → 15%USTTI: $35k → 14%University of Oregon: $150k → 15%United States Telecommunications Training Institute: $35k → 14%University of Oregon: $140k → 15%United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: $144k → 17%US Telecommunications Training Inst: $35k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: $125k → 15%UNDESA: $86k → 17%University of Oregon: $125k → 15%United Nations Dept of Economic & Social Affairs: $61k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
NY
OR
OH
CA
VA
DE
NC
DC
FL

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.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$910k · 35% · 15 grants · 16 people

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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$577k · 22% · 9 grants · 34 people

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.

East Asia and the Pacific$258k · 10% · 4 grants · 23 people

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)

South Asia$214k · 8% · 1 grant · 33 people

Stated purpose: Promotion and community engagement to increase awareness and adoption of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). · Fellowship · NextGen

North America (Canada and Mexico)$186k · 7% · 3 grants · 11 people

Stated purpose: Educational outreach to promote digital inclusivity and universal acceptance through a digital platform. · sponsorship of Registration Operations Workshop (ROW). · EconClub event sponsorship

South America$176k · 7% · 3 grants · 9 people

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

Middle East and North Africa$156k · 6% · 1 grant · 9 people

Stated purpose: Creation of a passive DNSSEC data collection platform (GUPPY) for monitoring DNSSEC records across all gTLD and ccTLD zones. · Fellowship · NextGen

Russia and Neighboring States$59k · 2% · 3 grants · 6 people

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

Central America and the Caribbean$49k · 2% · 10 people

Stated purpose: Fellowship

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 6% of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numberslessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.2M · 14 repeat orgs$777k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +28% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
8

Total granted

$4.2M
$285k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
0%

Still filing today

50%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $493k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationScience & TechInternationalCivil RightsPublic Safety & DisasterPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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 FOUNDATION
    5× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +182%
  • IS
    INTERNET SOCIETY
    5× · 2017–2025 · $625k · revenue +21%
  • UT
    US TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $263k · revenue +86%

Funded once

  • TS
    THE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%
  • CI
    CYBERGREEN INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -47%
  • TC
    Team Cymru Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Inc

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.

International
2
International Computer Science Institute

To conduct pioneering research in computer science, the internet and networking, data science, machine learning, and artifical intelligence through international collaborations.

—
3
Internet Security Alliance

The Alliances mission is to combine technology, public policy and economics to create a sustainable system of cyber security.

Community Improvement
4
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

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,…

International
5
Internet Society Foundation

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…

International
6
University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development

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.

Science & Tech
7
Center for Internet Security Inc

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.

Public Benefit
8
The International Anticounterfeiting Coalition Inc

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.

—
9
The Internet Association

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…

—
10
Electronic Privacy Information Center

Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.

Civil Rights
11
World Wide Web Consortium Inc

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.

Science & Tech
12
Corporation for National Research Initiatives

Scientific research in information processing; fostering dev. of nat'l inf. infra.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Network Initiative Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
10/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Oregon: $1,000,000 · OtherUniversity of OregonIETF ADMINISTRATION LLC: $531,635 · OtherIETF ADMINISTRATION LLCUN WOMEN: $205,531 · OtherUN WOMENKONGLE KONSULTING LLC: $100,000 · OtherCARIBNOG INC: $88,500 · OtherINTERNET SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP: $84,374 · Other+7 more: $163,728 · Other+7 moreUNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION: $1,065,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUND…THE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · EducationTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATIO…+3 more: $66,000 · Education+3 moreINTERNET SOCIETY: $624,500 · InternationalINTERNET SOCIETYKIVA MICROFUNDS: $335,804 · InternationalKIVA MICROFUNDSGLOBAL NETWORK INITIATIVE INC: $250,000 · InternationalGLOBAL NETWORK INITIATIVE…US TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC: $263,000 · Public BenefitINTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM INC: $148,500 · Science & TechCYBERGREEN INSTITUTE: $50,000 · Science & TechOARC Inc: $48,500 · Science & TechASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY INC: $12,500 · Science & TechGLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC: $115,000 · Public Safety & DisasterACCESS NOW: $50,000 · Civil Rights
Other$2,173,768Education$1,231,000International$1,210,304Public Benefit$263,000Science & Tech$259,500Public Safety & Disaster$115,000Civil Rights$50,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION: $1,065,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNET SOCIETY: $624,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetKIVA MICROFUNDS: $335,804 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC: $263,000 over 6y, 3.5% of budgetGLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC: $115,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetCYBERGREEN INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetACCESS NOW: $50,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetOARC Inc: $48,500 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetMARCONI SOCIETY INC: $35,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetARTHUR C CLARKE FOUNDATION OF THE UNITED STATES: $10,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetForum of Incident Response and Security Teams Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Internet SocietyThe Ford FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Internet SocietyVA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Internet Society · The Ford Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 28 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home