Elliot, You are right for sure that we are not going to settle all of this by exchanging a couple of mails ;-) The mission of the organization I mentioned is not what matters, neither was it any indication of what needs to be done with the funds. I was just giving an example – based upon our experience - that any kind of mechanism used to distribute funds might be more iterative and longer than what could be expected. Best regs, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> Op 1/02/17 15:08 heeft elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> geschreven: and I should note, we are not going to settle this in email and I look forward to meeting you all and discussing this face to face in copenhagen. EN > On Feb 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, elliot noss <ENoss@tucows.com> wrote: > > "an organization that has as goal to fund projects aimed to bridge the digital divide" > > this is not ICANN’s mission. we are dealing with an exception, not the organization’s goal. > > EN > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Peter Vergote <peter.vergote@dnsbelgium.be> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have to agree with Daniel here. >> >> Years ago we donated a lump sum of money (4 mio EUR) to an organization that has as goal to fund projects aimed to bridge the digital divide. The project plan envisaged a number of calls for projects (to receive funding) over a period of 3 years. >> >> In reality the program has run for more than 4,5 years because of: >> >> - Efficient cost management; >> - Lower costs/funding per project than anticipated; >> - Lesser inflow of projects than anticipated. >> >> Even if the auction proceeds would be a one off, chances are that the distribution of funds will be more iterative and may take many years as explained by Daniel. >> >> Best regs, >> >> Peter >> >> Peter Vergote >> Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager >> +32 16 29 89 28 >> +32 474 790096 >> www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> >> >> >> >> Op 1/02/17 12:19 heeft ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org namens Daniel Dardailler <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org namens danield@w3.org> geschreven: >> >> I think the one-time factor in terms of funding source (which in itself >> could turn out to be two-time or more, but not our business) doesn't >> equate to a one-time approach for disbursing these funds. >> >> E.g. if the agency we're designing goes for bi-annual periodic calls to >> give away a slice of the overall source funding available at each call, >> it could easily last for several years, and several years is kind of our >> own (the Internet/Web technical community) survival horizon, so hardly >> something we can call a one-time granting project IMO. >> >> At https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds >> it says that there is 233M in the bank as revenue source. >> If every six months, each call can grant 23M to various projects (we >> will have to discuss what is a typical project grant, for what >> duration), then we already have 5 years of activity for this agency. >> >> >> >> >> On 2017-02-01 03:28, Marika Konings wrote: >>> Dear Waudo, >>> >>> Please note that the charter states that: >>> >>> “These proceeds are to be considered as an exceptional, one-time >>> source of revenue”. >>> >>> However, you may also be interested in the opinion that Alan (co-chair >>> of the drafting team that developed the charter) shared in an earlier >>> thread: >>> >>> _“- There *may* be another round or rounds;_ >>> >>> _- There *may* be auctions_ >>> >>> _- Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds designated for uses >>> similar to in the first round._ >>> >>> _ _ >>> >>> _All of these would be the result of GNSO PDP(s) and Board action, and >>> are out of scope for us, regardless of whether we think any or all of >>> this would be good (and I am not advocating any of this here). If all >>> of those were to come to be, then the process we are developing *may* >>> be applicable (again, a decision WAY out of our scope). Nothing that >>> we do should REQUIRE that we must start all over again and re-invent >>> this in such a situation.”_ >>> >>> _ _ >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of waudo >>> siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> >>> DATE: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 1:24 AM >>> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> >>> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I missed the call but I am impressed by the progress that was made. >>> Reading the action points/discussion notes I think our focus now >>> should be on expanding and finalizing Item 5 - Workplan. I suggest we >>> set a deadline for having the workplan in place and also focus on this >>> item on the next call. >>> >>> I have a question on scope meantime. Probably those in the group who >>> may have participated in the formulation of the charter could be of >>> help: Is this exercise confined to the proceeds of the first round >>> auctions or do we need to come up with a mechanism encompassing any >>> future rollout scenarios (currently not known). The Charter just >>> refers to "new gTLDAuction Proceeds". >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Waudo Siganga >>> Chair >>> The Computer Society of Kenya >>> >>> Tel: +254722395900 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >