Again this is viewing the ICANN mission through the lens of the auction proceeds needs, which is one of the most monor requirements places upon the mission and core values. Put plainly if there is conflict between the needs of this CCWG and the needs of disbursement of the proceeds, and the needs of the ICANN mission, it is the CCWG that needs to change not the mission. -J -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 13:51 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP On 2017-09-05 12:31, James Gannon wrote:
This text was formulated prior to the mission revision.
Another reason to treat the auction funds as exceptional IMO and ask the community/board to allow for its scope to be extended a bit, to include what's in the first commitment (preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the Internet).
But my 2c is this text is clearly bounded by ICANN mission as it's an ICANN text, ICANN cannot go outside of its mission by legal definition. So any interpretation of the below needs to be within ICANN current mission.
But since this would make most of the examples given in the original "contract" invalid, couldn't it be legally challenged by those who have signed/agreed to the text in the first place ?
But yes is full agreement that this text should be core.
-J -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org] Sent: 05 September 2017 11:27 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
On 2017-09-05 12:03, James Gannon wrote:
I would recommend that everyone read up on the background docs before we go any further down this route.
Thanks for reminding us of this core text.
See below for some inline comments:
In particular the AGB: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
...
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,
The "greater Internet community" is what we're trying to define with the term Open Internet, so we're fine to be on that path it seems.
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,
Again, the "Internet community" here, without qualifier, so in broader sense (larger than our Open Internet filter in particular).
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."
Supporting Internet SDOs has gotten up-votes from several folks in the group (starting with me of course, since I work for one of them) but a strict reading of the mission/fund scope constraint would clearly eliminate this idea.
What do people in favor of applying a strict mission filter for the funds think about this discrepancy ?
As you can see from the AGB a refund was never really considered. -J
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 05 September 2017 10:56 To: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds