Sean:  No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@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@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@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@iecc.com>
CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds