Ccwg-auctionproceeds

Download

ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org

September 2017

31 participants
22 discussions

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

+1 Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 5, 2017 4:16 PM, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Even if it was its out of scope for this group. -----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds- bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 05 September 2017 16:01 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> Cc: John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 16:50, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Daniel/Jon > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield(a)w3.org> > wrote: > >> On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote: >> >>> Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or >>> anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon > > SO: Thanks for clarification Jon > >>> >> >> There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the >> applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the >> applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the >> second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a >> real option. > > SO: If by "real option" you mean using auction proceed to refund > applicants, I don't see why that should be an option at all. No, I meant using the application legal surplus to refund the applicants (in the 130M); is that a valid option that could be implemented ? > > Regards > >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 to that Alberto line of reasoning Alberto. Though it will be good >> to know if ICANN has indeed legally committed (as per contract) to >> provide some refunds from auction proceed. >> >> If that is the case i don't think its something within our scope to >> challenge we will just then need to clarify from ICANN how much is >> really available and accessible in the auction proceeds account. >> >> Regards >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Alberto Soto >> <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >> >> do not know how the signed contract is. I do not know if the >> return is >> correct. Whoever buys a restaurant and does not get profitability >> does so at >> their own risk. Who buys a domain and does not obtain >> profitability, does so >> at their own risk. ICANN should not be the guarantee if no >> profitability is >> obtained. >> >> Regards >> Alberto >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org >> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de >> Daniel >> Dardailler >> Enviado el: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 6:56 AM >> Para: John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >> Asunto: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board >> reply to >> CCWG-AP >> >> On 2017-09-04 23:48, John R. Levine wrote: >> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment > to > >>> what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under > the > >>> impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement > its > >>> mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming > from > >>> the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I > understand > >>> correctly). >> >> Not really. ICANN's operating budget is fully committed. There > is > >> indeed a lot of unspent new gTLD application money, but it's a > whole > >> separate can of worms. It's not ours to spend and since ICANN > said > >> the price was set to cover their costs, the obvious and ethical > thing > >> to do will be to refund the excess to the applicants. > > I kind of agree with the ethical part (although I haven't read the > contract > those applicants signed and what was promised in writing) but is > it really > going to be obvious to refund hundreds of applicants, some of them > potentially gone as a business ? > >> R's, >> John >> >> PS: >> >>> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN > community > >>> (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them > back > >>> to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the > community ? > >> Well, actually, it's the board's money to give away, not ours. > We're > >> just offering them advice. > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [1] > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [1] > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] >> Mobile: +2348035233535 [1] >> _alt email: [3]seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng_ >> >> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your >> action! > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] > [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ > [3] http://goog_1872880453/ > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> _alt email: [2]seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng_ >> >>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your >>> action! > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] tel:%2B2348035233535 > [2] http://goog_1872880453 > [3] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

1 0

Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
by James Gannon Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Apologies misread the message, as you said the nGTLD reserve is out of scope for this CCWG. -J -----Original Message----- From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: 05 September 2017 15:18 To: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP Sorry, but I don't understand what point you're making here. I said ICANN should refund the excess application fees, not the auction money. More to the point, I hope it's clear that the auction pool is the size it is, and that's what we and ICANN have to give away. I certainly agree with Alan's point that there is plenty of stuff that is in the scope of ICANN's mission but that they wouldn't do in their normal annual budget process. R's, John On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, James Gannon wrote: > I would recommend that everyone read up on the background docs before we go any further down this route. > In particular the AGB: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb > > "The purpose of an auction is to resolve contention in a clear, objective manner. It is planned that costs of the new gTLD program > will offset by fees, so any funds coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as auctions would result (after > paying for the auction process) in additional funding. Any proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses of > funds are determined. Funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN's Mission and Core Values and also allows > ICANN to maintain its not for profit status. > > Possible uses of auction funds include formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to > projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community, such as grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators > from communities in subsequent gTLD rounds, the creation of an ICANN-administered/community-based fund for specific projects > for the benefit of the Internet community, the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants (ensuring that > funds would be in place to support the operation of a gTLD registry until a successor could be found), or establishment of a security > fund to expand use of secure protocols, conduct research, and support standards development organizations in accordance with > ICANN's security and stability mission." > > As you can see from the AGB a refund was never really considered. > -J > > -----Original Message----- > From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > Dardailler > Sent: 05 September 2017 10:56 > To: John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply > to CCWG-AP > > On 2017-09-04 23:48, John R. Levine wrote: >>> Is the current financial position of ICANN really an impediment to >>> what ICANN wants to do in support of its mission ? I was under the >>> impression that ICANN's budget was healthy enough to implement its >>> mission optimally today, with also a large untouched pot coming from >>> the new gTLD application process (unused legal costs if I understand >>> correctly). >> >> Not really. ICANN's operating budget is fully committed. There is >> indeed a lot of unspent new gTLD application money, but it's a whole >> separate can of worms. It's not ours to spend and since ICANN said >> the price was set to cover their costs, the obvious and ethical thing >> to do will be to refund the excess to the applicants. > > I kind of agree with the ethical part (although I haven't read the contract those applicants signed and what was promised in writing) but is it really going to be obvious to refund hundreds of applicants, some of them potentially gone as a business ? > > > > >> >> R's, >> John >> >> PS: >>> How is it different to give away the funds to the ICANN community >>> (for projects aligned with the ICANN mission) vs. to give them back >>> to the board directly, given that the board is driven by the community ? >> >> Well, actually, it's the board's money to give away, not ours. We're >> just offering them advice. > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

1 0