Re: [At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help
I agree. There is a generally lack of knowledge about ICANN in my community.
I'm sure there's a lack of knowledge about all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean there is a charitable purpose to PR about them. ICANN is bound by American 501(c)(3) rules, and while "educational" is one of the permitted purposes, it'd be quite a stretch to say that telling someone wbout how great and important one is would be educational. R's, John
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Whitehurst Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 9:48 AM To: John R. Levine Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help
I guess that depends on what is meant by “promote knowledge” and how you accomplish it. But I’ve never really understood the promotion of knowledge to automatically mean self-promotion, as in the sense of self-aggrandizement.
But I’d give you they might be more specific about the knowledge about the organization they are talking about, so someone doesn’t use the language to play fast and loose.
It’s probably not bad that somewhere a long the line people might become knowledgeable about ICANN’s role, for example.
I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John. Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing. --- Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence. Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next. Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope. (Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.) - Evan
Oh and before anyone replies on procedure: I am fully aware that this stage of the WG is dealing with broad criteria and not specific recipients. But in the world of Internet Governance, the IGF is in a category of its own and IMO it is reasonable to discuss its inclusion at a structural level at this point. On 12 May 2017 at 18:55, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
---
Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope.
(Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.)
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Thanks Evan There is a process for deciding on what to do with the cash - and it will require lots of divergent hands up. that said, I can think of two ways that money could be spent that would be in the community’s interests. The first is to target those areas (i.e., the rest of the world outside the US and Europe) that did not figure significantly in the first round - to find out why, and to address those issues. Thesecond (or maybe a part of it) would be IGF support. If one of the reasons for the US finally giving IANA to ICANN was about making sure the UN wasn’t in charge, there is an argument that the IGF should also not be beholden to the UN Holly On 13 May 2017, at 8:59 am, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Oh and before anyone replies on procedure:
I am fully aware that this stage of the WG is dealing with broad criteria and not specific recipients.
But in the world of Internet Governance, the IGF is in a category of its own and IMO it is reasonable to discuss its inclusion at a structural level at this point.
On 12 May 2017 at 18:55, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
---
Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope.
(Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.)
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
While Canada is a G7 country, its record when it comes to consumer representation is dismal, well by Canadian democratic standards. ;-) So there is a huge need for resources here to engage matters like Internet governance. Debates are raging here about many matters touched by Internet governance, from privacy to commercial security to cultural expression. Our organization will be addressing a standing committee of Canada's Parliament around Internet privacy and security issues this Tuesday. The consumer perspective does not get the well-rounded discussion here it deserves in all these matters because of the limited capacity of consumer associations, and by that I mean associations of "retail" consumers with an interest in the functioning of the Internet. This constituency is not well formed or heard. We have become involved in the ICANN process because we think Internet governance issues are at the nexus of an unfolding crisis of security and authentication breaches that threaten the trust of consumers in what has become one of the world's most important global institutions, the Internet. The resources created by the assignment of Internet identity must be used in some measure to increase understanding of Internet governance and to facilitate consumer representation and understanding, whether through associations or by individuals. But we believe associations will be the most capable and effective protagonists in this complex area on behalf of the heterogeneous consumer constituency that our organization seeks to represent. Canada is not the EU and it is not the US and it certainly is not China in terms of economic scale and ability to aggregate resources for this purpose, and it's people and civil society organizations have much in common with many other countries and their citizens around the world in requiring resources from the cash flows of the system of the Internet itself to participate in global Internet governance. So we think this should be on the table in any discussion of the dispersement of proceeds of income raised directly or indirectly from Internet users, as well as the need to increase the awareness of publics around the world about the processes of Internet governance. My apologies if I am not on point. But since Internet governance was raised as an objective of funding, I am responding to this additional point. -- Ken Whitehurst Executive Director Consumers Council of Canada
On May 13, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Evan
There is a process for deciding on what to do with the cash - and it will require lots of divergent hands up. that said, I can think of two ways that money could be spent that would be in the community’s interests. The first is to target those areas (i.e., the rest of the world outside the US and Europe) that did not figure significantly in the first round - to find out why, and to address those issues. Thesecond (or maybe a part of it) would be IGF support. If one of the reasons for the US finally giving IANA to ICANN was about making sure the UN wasn’t in charge, there is an argument that the IGF should also not be beholden to the UN
Holly
On 13 May 2017, at 8:59 am, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Oh and before anyone replies on procedure:
I am fully aware that this stage of the WG is dealing with broad criteria and not specific recipients.
But in the world of Internet Governance, the IGF is in a category of its own and IMO it is reasonable to discuss its inclusion at a structural level at this point.
On 12 May 2017 at 18:55, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
---
Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope.
(Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.)
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi, Besides all the suggestions for fund usage, I would suggest another way to "use" the money. That is, to REFUND all the applicants who paid for applying new gTLDs. If I remember correctly, ICANN collected USD $175K per application, and recognized as a hefty price to pay even by ICANN itself. This could be a threshold that prevented some or many potential applications. Thus, to proportionally refund the applicants would be one of the fairest way to "get rid of" the "extra" funds collected. Meanwhile, in relation to ICANN's mission, I do not agree anyway to spend this money for the "awareness" or marketing of the new gTLD program, or of ICANN itself. Thank you. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Evan Leibovitch To: ICANN At-Large list Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John. Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing. --- Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence. Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next. Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope. (Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.) - Evan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 13 May 2017 at 01:05, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Besides all the suggestions for fund usage, I would suggest another way to
"use" the money. That is, to REFUND all the applicants who paid for applying new gTLDs.
The original price was set by policy of cost-recovery, at the price that it was because there was no precedent and that ICANN needed to build-in contingencies for legal challenges and recoup previously-spent expenses to design the gTLD program. ICANN has never calculated the actual cost of delivering the program, and until it does the amount of a refund can not be known. I think that the result of such research would be surprising, that the gap between actual cost and anticipated cost is far less than might be dreamed by the domain industry. Remember that the issue under debate is not the disposal of excess funds from the gTLD application fees over real costs, but of auction proceeds gained well in excess of those fees by applicants willing to pay an even higher premium to get specific strings. If I remember correctly, ICANN collected USD $175K per application, and
recognized as a hefty price to pay even by ICANN itself. This could be a threshold that prevented some or many potential applications.
Perhaps a lower fee for future rounds based on the experience of previous wounds would address this situation, but a retroactive refund would not. - Evan
On 13 May 2017, at 08:51, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Remember that the issue under debate is not the disposal of excess funds from the gTLD application fees over real costs, but of auction proceeds gained well in excess of those fees by applicants willing to pay an even higher premium to get specific strings. If I remember correctly, ICANN collected USD $175K per application, and recognized as a hefty price to pay even by ICANN itself. This could be a threshold that prevented some or many potential applications. Perhaps a lower fee for future rounds based on the experience of previous wounds would address this situation, but a retroactive refund would not. Agree on the first point, we are talking of the auction proceeds. Since this is money that the competitors have willingly invested, there is no correlation with the excess fees, that were a compulsory payment for the application. However, I disagree on the second point. Once ICANN has calculated the real cost, one of the options is indeed to retroactively refund the difference, assuming that the budget item from where the money comes is the regular gTLD programme, not the auction funds. Of course, the obstacle might be that the refund will come a few fiscal years after the payment, but this should not be a major problem Back to the main issue that originated the thread, I believe that we must also take into account perceptions. So, while I agree that self-promotion of the activities that ICANN does for serving the global community could be done with this money without affecting the non-profit status (if done properly), I would hope that this activity will be funded by the regular budget. Cheers, Roberto
Personally I believe the $175K charge per gTLD app was far too low, it should have been at least 10x that. That's why we got 1400 apps, quite a few of questionable value to anyone based on current results. Next we'll get to deal with potentially hundreds of insolvent registries. And the costs of those insolvencies which could be quite significant depending on the adopted solutions. It's difficult to talk about "cost recovery" when those costs remain unknown. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 14 May 2017 at 17:08, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
Personally I believe the $175K charge per gTLD app was far too low, it should have been at least 10x that.
I agree. I also personally that upping ICANN fees tenfold so that 2nd level domains are at least $75/year would have inhibited speculation, redundant and defensive domains, yet been a negligible additional expense to the operation of a genuine web presence. (And the extra revenue could have gone towards active enforcement of DNS accuracy.) But that ship has long sailed and isn't coming back. The domain industry, in its dominance of policy, has made ICANN dependent upon the revenue from all the speculative and defensive registrations. - Evan
On May 14, 2017 at 18:08 evan@telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) wrote:
On 14 May 2017 at 17:08, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
Personally I believe the $175K charge per gTLD app was far too low, it should have been at least 10x that.
I agree. I also personally that upping ICANN fees tenfold so that 2nd level domains are at least $75/year would have inhibited speculation, redundant and defensive domains, yet been a negligible additional expense to the operation of a genuine web presence. (And the extra revenue could have gone towards active enforcement of DNS accuracy.)
But that ship has long sailed and isn't coming back. The domain industry, in its dominance of policy, has made ICANN dependent upon the revenue from all the speculative and defensive registrations.
Probably not apropos to this list but what's the plan for the 2nd round? To set a similar price which seems comfortable to the registries and registrars around the table only to once again see the really good TLDs snatched up by deep pockets who see $175K as walking-around money? I suppose that is apropos since that's how the auction pot grew, basically the proceeds of stealing candy from babies. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Hi, Thank you for your comments. As you mentioned, even at USD $175K per application, there were 1400 of them, which is indeed a lot. From a commercial point of view, this may be interpreted as the fee is too low. However, ICANN is not a commercial entity. Furthermore, ICANN is the ultimate authority of the DNS industry, pretty much like the government, which can also be understood as a natural manopoly. Thus, the law of supply and demand should not be used in its policy decisions. This reminds me of the 3G radio spectrum allocation process during the 2000s. At first, some governments auctioned the 3G spectrum, which brought in billions of Euros for the government's treasury. However, immediately there were loud complaints that this in turn translated into substantial higher fees for the ordinary consumers/ end-users. Thus, other governments later took the "beauty contest" approach. That is, a panel decides the suuccessful contender based on the service to be provided to the public. Of course, there were also hybrid approaches, e.g., using an auction appoach to short-list the applicants, while the final decision being made via "beauty contests". This example shows that, ICANN, being an NPO working for the public interest, should not consider its own financial interests as the basis on policy decisions. Also, the law of supply and demand should not be applied either, especially as ICANN is a natural monopoly. Thank you again. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: <bzs@theworld.com> To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com>; "ICANN At-Large list" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help
Personally I believe the $175K charge per gTLD app was far too low, it should have been at least 10x that.
That's why we got 1400 apps, quite a few of questionable value to anyone based on current results.
Next we'll get to deal with potentially hundreds of insolvent registries.
And the costs of those insolvencies which could be quite significant depending on the adopted solutions.
It's difficult to talk about "cost recovery" when those costs remain unknown.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On May 15, 2017 at 13:21 kankaili@gmail.com (Kan Kaili) wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for your comments.
As you mentioned, even at USD $175K per application, there were 1400 of them, which is indeed a lot. From a commercial point of view, this may be interpreted as the fee is too low.
It wasn't a commercial comment so much as a managability comment and a concern for the security and stability of the internet forward. Although the DNS system can certainly handle 1,000+ new TLDs, technically, it remains to be seen whether this serves the public interest. And can ICANN handle the interface with 1,000+ new gTlDs soas to serve that public interest. I suppose that begs the question of "then how many would be right?" As many predicted we're seeing these 1K+ nTLDs becoming a rather steep (downwards) long tail. A handful seem to be gaining some traction, the rest seem to be struggling for an audience. My concern is that this long tail will produce many insolvencies leaving registrants with an unstable future. Time will tell. I'll admit this hasn't happened once thus far. I was reminded this did happen several years ago with one registry, .PRO, but since it was just one registry it was handled fairly easily, just handed over to another larger registry. That may not be a reasonable expectation if hundreds of registries become insolvent.
However, ICANN is not a commercial entity. Furthermore, ICANN is the ultimate authority of the DNS industry, pretty much like the government, which can also be understood as a natural manopoly. Thus, the law of supply and demand should not be used in its policy decisions.
This reminds me of the 3G radio spectrum allocation process during the 2000s. At first, some governments auctioned the 3G spectrum, which brought in billions of Euros for the government's treasury. However, immediately there were loud complaints that this in turn translated into substantial higher fees for the ordinary consumers/ end-users. Thus, other governments later took the "beauty contest" approach. That is, a panel decides the suuccessful contender based on the service to be provided to the public. Of course, there were also hybrid approaches, e.g., using an auction appoach to short-list the applicants, while the final decision being made via "beauty contests".
This example shows that, ICANN, being an NPO working for the public interest, should not consider its own financial interests as the basis on policy decisions. Also, the law of supply and demand should not be applied either, especially as ICANN is a natural monopoly.
It's not clear whether ICANN's financial interests would be improved by a much higher gTLD application few. There likely would have been many fewer applications. We can only guess. I suppose one could argue that their "margin" per new gTLD would have improved but that's a relative observation. (note: "beauty contest" is a term of art in economics and game theory and I believe that's what's being referred to here, look it up in wikipedia if you are unfamiliar.) My feeling is a much higher application fee would have avoided so many seemingly frivolous gTLDs and ensured only those with greater financial stability and commitment, and thus likelihood of success. And of course simplified the interface with registries. Thus avoiding any need for a beauty contest round towards the end. This may seem like Monday morning quarterbacking (pick your favorite sport :-)) but it's worthwhile considering as another round of new gTLDs proceeds, and in terms of the stability and security of this new crop of gTLDs forward.
Thank you again.
Kaili
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Dear friends. Wonderful debate. I have cut and past in a document your comments, just took off the out of context regarding new gTLDs and will be psoted to the CCWG page. Thank you for all your comments . Indeed some comments deserve also to enlighten other working groups as those related to new gTLDs. Kind regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! On 5/15/17, 4:14 PM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs@theworld.com" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs@theworld.com> wrote: It's not clear whether ICANN's financial interests would be improved by a much higher gTLD application few. There likely would have been many fewer applications. We can only guess. I suppose one could argue that their "margin" per new gTLD would have improved but that's a relative observation. (note: "beauty contest" is a term of art in economics and game theory and I believe that's what's being referred to here, look it up in wikipedia if you are unfamiliar.) My feeling is a much higher application fee would have avoided so many seemingly frivolous gTLDs and ensured only those with greater financial stability and commitment, and thus likelihood of success. And of course simplified the interface with registries. Thus avoiding any need for a beauty contest round towards the end. This may seem like Monday morning quarterbacking (pick your favorite sport :-)) but it's worthwhile considering as another round of new gTLDs proceeds, and in terms of the stability and security of this new crop of gTLDs forward.
The responsible thing for ICANN to do is to put the cash into essentially an 'endowment fund' (trust, whatever, the lawyers and accountants can choose the appropriate words and structure) and disburse only proceeds received from management of that fund. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
That all depends on your point of view. There are some (I am not among them) who believe we should get rid of the money in a responsible way, but as quickly as possible, and get out of the game of being a "charity". At 14/05/2017 04:59 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
The responsible thing for ICANN to do is to put the cash into essentially an 'endowment fund' (trust, whatever, the lawyers and accountants can choose the appropriate words and structure) and disburse only proceeds received from management of that fund.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I feel the same way, Evan is saying what I was thinking. Regards Mirjana Plug-in Belgrade Serbia
On May 13, 2017, at 00:55, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
---
Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope.
(Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.)
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On May 12, 2017 at 16:41 johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
I agree. There is a generally lack of knowledge about ICANN in my community.
I'm sure there's a lack of knowledge about all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean there is a charitable purpose to PR about them. ICANN is bound by American 501(c)(3) rules, and while "educational" is one of the permitted purposes, it'd be quite a stretch to say that telling someone wbout how great and important one is would be educational.
To the best of my knowledge ICANN does not assert 501c3 based on charitable activities. Whether that factors into the underlying point is above my pay grade. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
John R. Levine -
Kan Kaili -
Ken Whitehurst -
Mirjana Tasic -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini