Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms
John, I fear that you have misunderstood and jumped to conclusions here. I have no idea how the current negotiations around the .org registry will play out, and of course under no circumstances would it, or any new gTLD registry rest with ICANN. If there is an unspoken assumption here, it is that if (IF) there were a new non-profit gTLD registry, it would likely use profits for the ways envisioned for the Mechanisms. much the way ISOC has with PIR. It was presented as a "/What if/..." food for thought, and not a "/Somebody should/..." suggestion. Sorry that was not clear enough. Sam Lanfranco On 11/27/2019 5:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
However, whatever new gTLD auction proceeds Mechanism materializes, it involves building capacity to administer a grant making process. It is worth noting that if the .org registry needed a new home or especially if a new public interest gTLD were to be created, an option would be to create the registry out of the selected Mechanism, an entity that would have considerable expertise and hit the ground running.
I am a trustee of the Internet Society and I find this comment to be totally out of line.
ICANN cannot own a registry (other than the tiny and ancient .INT) and the process of running a registry has nothing in common with evaluating and giving grants. In the unlikely event that the .org sale doesn't complete, the .org registry will still belong to ISOC as it does now.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam@lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Sam, might be an idea to reframe the discussion here because I came to the same conclusion as John and was also very confused as to what the food to be thought about was. From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Thursday, 28 November 2019 at 00:12 To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms John, I fear that you have misunderstood and jumped to conclusions here. I have no idea how the current negotiations around the .org registry will play out, and of course under no circumstances would it, or any new gTLD registry rest with ICANN. If there is an unspoken assumption here, it is that if (IF) there were a new non-profit gTLD registry, it would likely use profits for the ways envisioned for the Mechanisms. much the way ISOC has with PIR. It was presented as a "What if..." food for thought, and not a "Somebody should..." suggestion. Sorry that was not clear enough. Sam Lanfranco On 11/27/2019 5:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote: However, whatever new gTLD auction proceeds Mechanism materializes, it involves building capacity to administer a grant making process. It is worth noting that if the .org registry needed a new home or especially if a new public interest gTLD were to be created, an option would be to create the registry out of the selected Mechanism, an entity that would have considerable expertise and hit the ground running. I am a trustee of the Internet Society and I find this comment to be totally out of line. ICANN cannot own a registry (other than the tiny and ancient .INT) and the process of running a registry has nothing in common with evaluating and giving grants. In the unlikely event that the .org sale doesn't complete, the .org registry will still belong to ISOC as it does now. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net> Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Thanks James and John, Here is an attempt to reformat my /Food for Thought/ long look into the future. There are two processes underway: * This ccWG is dealing with an implementation mechanism, and ranking Mechanisms, to handle a new gTLD auction proceeds grants process. * At ISOC, there is the pending sale of PIR and the .org registry to a private investment group Should the sale go through, time will tell the extent to which the not-for-profit community feels that the .org registry is operating in the public interest. At the same time the selected Mechanism for handling the new gTLD auction proceeds will have built up considerable expertise managing grants. If (and I stress “if”) there were demand for a new not-for-profit/public interest gTLD, the registry would have to go somewhere. The Mechanism handling the new gTLD auction proceeds would have a track record and may be in a good position to handle a similar grants process. Could a Mechanism that is arm’s length from ICANN also handle a registry? Yes, no, why not? It is an acquired skill. In conclusion I am raising two possibilities. One is that there may be a need for a new not-for-profit public interest gTLD. The other is that the Mechanism selected for the new gTLD auction proceeds may have a useful second life, should a new gTLD come to pass. Time will tell. As for betting on outcomes. I won't do that. Sam Lanfranco
This is forbidden by the ICANN bylaws which was the point that John was making, and was a conscious decision to never ever allow that scenario to happen. From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Thursday, 28 November 2019 at 01:04 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms Thanks James and John, Here is an attempt to reformat my Food for Thought long look into the future. There are two processes underway: * This ccWG is dealing with an implementation mechanism, and ranking Mechanisms, to handle a new gTLD auction proceeds grants process. * At ISOC, there is the pending sale of PIR and the .org registry to a private investment group Should the sale go through, time will tell the extent to which the not-for-profit community feels that the .org registry is operating in the public interest. At the same time the selected Mechanism for handling the new gTLD auction proceeds will have built up considerable expertise managing grants. If (and I stress “if”) there were demand for a new not-for-profit/public interest gTLD, the registry would have to go somewhere. The Mechanism handling the new gTLD auction proceeds would have a track record and may be in a good position to handle a similar grants process. Could a Mechanism that is arm’s length from ICANN also handle a registry? Yes, no, why not? It is an acquired skill. In conclusion I am raising two possibilities. One is that there may be a need for a new not-for-profit public interest gTLD. The other is that the Mechanism selected for the new gTLD auction proceeds may have a useful second life, should a new gTLD come to pass. Time will tell. As for betting on outcomes. I won't do that. Sam Lanfranco
James, Are there assumptions imputed here that have not been made? Are you saying that there is no possibility of new gTLDs? Which part is forbidden? Sam L. On 11/27/2019 7:07 PM, James Gannon wrote:
This is forbidden by the ICANN bylaws which was the point that John was making, and was a conscious decision to never ever allow that scenario to happen.
*From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms
Thanks James and John,
Here is an attempt to reformat my /Food for Thought/ long look into the future.
There are two processes underway:
* This ccWG is dealing with an implementation mechanism, and ranking Mechanisms, to handle a new gTLD auction proceeds grants process.
* At ISOC, there is the pending sale of PIR and the .org registry to a private investment group
Should the sale go through, time will tell the extent to which the not-for-profit community feels that the .org registry is operating in the public interest.
At the same time the selected Mechanism for handling the new gTLD auction proceeds will have built up considerable expertise managing grants.
If (and I stress “if”) there were demand for a new not-for-profit/public interest gTLD, the registry would have to go somewhere. The Mechanism handling the new gTLD auction proceeds would have a track record and may be in a good position to handle a similar grants process. Could a Mechanism that is arm’s length from ICANN also handle a registry? Yes, no, why not? It is an acquired skill.
In conclusion I am raising two possibilities. One is that there may be a need for a new not-for-profit public interest gTLD. The other is that the Mechanism selected for the new gTLD auction proceeds may have a useful second life, should a new gTLD come to pass. Time will tell. As for betting on outcomes. I won't do that.
Sam Lanfranco
-
ICANN or its affilates running a registry Section 2.2 of the ICANN bylaws states: Section 2.2. RESTRICTIONS ICANN shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN. Nothing in this Section 2.2 is intended to prevent ICANN from taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the operational stability of the Internet in the event of financial failure of a Registry or Registrar or other emergency. From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Thursday, 28 November 2019 at 01:23 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms James, Are there assumptions imputed here that have not been made? Are you saying that there is no possibility of new gTLDs? Which part is forbidden? Sam L. On 11/27/2019 7:07 PM, James Gannon wrote: This is forbidden by the ICANN bylaws which was the point that John was making, and was a conscious decision to never ever allow that scenario to happen. From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net><mailto:sam@lanfranco.net> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms Thanks James and John, Here is an attempt to reformat my Food for Thought long look into the future. There are two processes underway: * This ccWG is dealing with an implementation mechanism, and ranking Mechanisms, to handle a new gTLD auction proceeds grants process. * At ISOC, there is the pending sale of PIR and the .org registry to a private investment group Should the sale go through, time will tell the extent to which the not-for-profit community feels that the .org registry is operating in the public interest. At the same time the selected Mechanism for handling the new gTLD auction proceeds will have built up considerable expertise managing grants. If (and I stress “if”) there were demand for a new not-for-profit/public interest gTLD, the registry would have to go somewhere. The Mechanism handling the new gTLD auction proceeds would have a track record and may be in a good position to handle a similar grants process. Could a Mechanism that is arm’s length from ICANN also handle a registry? Yes, no, why not? It is an acquired skill. In conclusion I am raising two possibilities. One is that there may be a need for a new not-for-profit public interest gTLD. The other is that the Mechanism selected for the new gTLD auction proceeds may have a useful second life, should a new gTLD come to pass. Time will tell. As for betting on outcomes. I won't do that. Sam Lanfranco -
James, I never suggested that. Just suggested that there may be demand for a new not-for-profit/community focused gTLD. Did suggest that an */arm's length/* experienced Mechanism could be useful in a grants distribution role. Sam L. On 11/27/2019 7:24 PM, James Gannon wrote:
ICANN or its affilates running a registry Section 2.2 of the ICANN bylaws states:
*Section 2.2. RESTRICTIONS*
ICANN shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN. Nothing in this _Section 2.2_ is intended to prevent ICANN from taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the operational stability of the Internet in the event of financial failure of a Registry or Registrar or other emergency.
*From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> *Date: *Thursday, 28 November 2019 at 01:23 *To: *James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> *Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms
James,
Are there assumptions imputed here that have not been made? Are you saying that there is no possibility of new gTLDs? Which part is forbidden?
Sam L.
On 11/27/2019 7:07 PM, James Gannon wrote:
This is forbidden by the ICANN bylaws which was the point that John was making, and was a conscious decision to never ever allow that scenario to happen.
*From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> <mailto:sam@lanfranco.net> *Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanisms
Thanks James and John,
Here is an attempt to reformat my /Food for Thought/ long look into the future.
There are two processes underway:
* This ccWG is dealing with an implementation mechanism, and ranking Mechanisms, to handle a new gTLD auction proceeds grants process.
* At ISOC, there is the pending sale of PIR and the .org registry to a private investment group
Should the sale go through, time will tell the extent to which the not-for-profit community feels that the .org registry is operating in the public interest.
At the same time the selected Mechanism for handling the new gTLD auction proceeds will have built up considerable expertise managing grants.
If (and I stress “if”) there were demand for a new not-for-profit/public interest gTLD, the registry would have to go somewhere. The Mechanism handling the new gTLD auction proceeds would have a track record and may be in a good position to handle a similar grants process. Could a Mechanism that is arm’s length from ICANN also handle a registry? Yes, no, why not? It is an acquired skill.
In conclusion I am raising two possibilities. One is that there may be a need for a new not-for-profit public interest gTLD. The other is that the Mechanism selected for the new gTLD auction proceeds may have a useful second life, should a new gTLD come to pass. Time will tell. As for betting on outcomes. I won't do that.
Sam Lanfranco
-
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA email: sam@lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
participants (2)
-
James Gannon -
Sam Lanfranco