Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions
Hello, I think dedicating a department just to manage the auction proceed seem like an overkill since this won't be a continuous event. A mechanism that allows staff (GSE dept for instance) to this as a project item and manage the funds based on the guidelines developed by this group should just do. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 30, 2017 14:39, "Ching Chiao" <chiao@brandma.co> wrote: Thank you Alan and Elliot for making these important comments. If we took a step back and ask ICANN -- if they simply keep this extraordinary income (generated from auctions, donations, or other means), what are the financial and cost consequences? Can the money be spend thru existing ICANN mechanism or would it be better to donate , or to spend via a separate ICANN-run entity ? I think the idea of "sunset" is worthy of discussion -- what are the triggering facts (time, fund size, Board decision) and how the community could benefit from it. -- Ching (speaking as individual member) On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Fine. as long as it can be overridden should conditions make that desireable.
I'm old enough to have seen lots of things that the math did not predict...
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On January 29, 2017 12:36:12 PM EST, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
While all that is true, simply given the math, the structure (first round = most desirable) and the market conditions, this round will be singular in size/scale. Using what we do as a model is never precluded, but what is important is to bake sunsetting into any structure we use.
EN
On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Hi Elliot,
I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There are a lot of unknowns regarding future gTLDs:
- There *may* ba 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.
Alan
At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote:
Hello all,
First, I wish to apologize for not being on the call. It has been a crazy couple of weeks as some of you know.
Second, I wish to thank Daniel Dardailler for the excellent summary suggestions below. I agree with almost all of them. There is one place where I would like to add a thought for greater clarity.
One of the two most important things to me in this process is that we recognize that this is a singular opportunity both in scope and in nature. While there may be other opportunities for ICANN to actively dispense money (I personally think a lower budget and annual surplus should be the norm but
..), tthey are
not currently part of the process and I have great fear of institutionalizing an â?oICANN Charityâ? . We are looking at a singular event, which is auction excess in the first round of open applications ever.
Any structure(s) we create should naturally sunset. This informs both the setup and the rules for disbursement and productively simplifies both.
I know we will all have lots of opportunity to discuss this, and all other matters but I did want to interject this at this point. Thank you.
EN
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 <+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032 <+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050 <+1%20908-499-0050> Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I respectfully disagree, if we think that we can disburse a quarter of a billion dollars through existing mechanisms then we will quickly learn that we have issues. -J From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Monday 30 January 2017 at 17:20 To: Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions Hello, I think dedicating a department just to manage the auction proceed seem like an overkill since this won't be a continuous event. A mechanism that allows staff (GSE dept for instance) to this as a project item and manage the funds based on the guidelines developed by this group should just do. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 30, 2017 14:39, "Ching Chiao" <chiao@brandma.co<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>> wrote: Thank you Alan and Elliot for making these important comments. If we took a step back and ask ICANN -- if they simply keep this extraordinary income (generated from auctions, donations, or other means), what are the financial and cost consequences? Can the money be spend thru existing ICANN mechanism or would it be better to donate , or to spend via a separate ICANN-run entity ? I think the idea of "sunset" is worthy of discussion -- what are the triggering facts (time, fund size, Board decision) and how the community could benefit from it. -- Ching (speaking as individual member) On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Fine. as long as it can be overridden should conditions make that desireable. I'm old enough to have seen lots of things that the math did not predict... Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On January 29, 2017 12:36:12 PM EST, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com<mailto:enoss@tucows.com>> wrote: While all that is true, simply given the math, the structure (first round = most desirable) and the market conditions, this round will be singular in size/scale. Using what we do as a model is never precluded, but what is important is to bake sunsetting into any structure we use. EN On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Hi Elliot, I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There are a lot of unknowns regarding future gTLDs: - There *may* ba 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. Alan At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote: Hello all, First, I wish to apologize for not being on the call. It has been a crazy couple of weeks as some of you know. Second, I wish to thank Daniel Dardailler for the excellent summary suggestions below. I agree with almost all of them. There is one place where I would like to add a thought for greater clarity. One of the two most important things to me in this process is that we recognize that this is a singular opportunity both in scope and in nature. While there may be other opportunities for ICANN to actively dispense money (I personally think a lower budget and annual surplus should be the norm but ..), tthey are not currently part of the process and I have great fear of institutionalizing an â?oICANN Charityâ? . We are looking at a singular event, which is auction excess in the first round of open applications ever. Any structure(s) we create should naturally sunset. This informs both the setup and the rules for disbursement and productively simplifies both. I know we will all have lots of opportunity to discuss this, and all other matters but I did want to interject this at this point. Thank you. EN _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds -- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com<http://www.brandma.com> +886.918.211372<tel:+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032<tel:+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050<tel:+1%20908-499-0050> Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hi James, I don't think "existing mechanism" was used in my statement. The mechanism is what we are to develop and my point was that we do not need a whole new department to make it operational. Especially considering that the funds isn't recurring and may never happen in future (depending on how ICANN processes evolve as it concerns newgtld) The mechanism can run within an existing department (I used GSE as an example because I think they might be appropriate, ofcourse it can be other department that has a global scope). I hope you are not suggesting that the community put into operation whatever comes out of this process. If not then it may be good that you kindly clarify your disagreement based on my clarification Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 30, 2017 17:44, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I respectfully disagree, if we think that we can disburse a quarter of a billion dollars through existing mechanisms then we will quickly learn that we have issues.
-J
From: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Monday 30 January 2017 at 17:20 To: Ching Chiao <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions
Hello,
I think dedicating a department just to manage the auction proceed seem like an overkill since this won't be a continuous event. A mechanism that allows staff (GSE dept for instance) to this as a project item and manage the funds based on the guidelines developed by this group should just do.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Jan 30, 2017 14:39, "Ching Chiao" <chiao@brandma.co> wrote:
Thank you Alan and Elliot for making these important comments. If we took a step back and ask ICANN -- if they simply keep this extraordinary income (generated from auctions, donations, or other means), what are the financial and cost consequences? Can the money be spend thru existing ICANN mechanism or would it be better to donate , or to spend via a separate ICANN-run entity ?
I think the idea of "sunset" is worthy of discussion -- what are the triggering facts (time, fund size, Board decision) and how the community could benefit from it.
-- Ching (speaking as individual member)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Fine. as long as it can be overridden should conditions make that desireable.
I'm old enough to have seen lots of things that the math did not predict...
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On January 29, 2017 12:36:12 PM EST, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
While all that is true, simply given the math, the structure (first round = most desirable) and the market conditions, this round will be singular in size/scale. Using what we do as a model is never precluded, but what is important is to bake sunsetting into any structure we use.
EN
On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Hi Elliot,
I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There are a lot of unknowns regarding future gTLDs:
- There *may* ba 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.
Alan
At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote:
Hello all,
First, I wish to apologize for not being on the call. It has been a crazy couple of weeks as some of you know.
Second, I wish to thank Daniel Dardailler for the excellent summary suggestions below. I agree with almost all of them. There is one place where I would like to add a thought for greater clarity.
One of the two most important things to me in this process is that we recognize that this is a singular opportunity both in scope and in nature. While there may be other opportunities for ICANN to actively dispense money (I personally think a lower budget and annual surplus should be the norm but
..), tthey are
not currently part of the process and I have great fear of institutionalizing an â?oICANN Charityâ? . We are looking at a singular event, which is auction excess in the first round of open applications ever.
Any structure(s) we create should naturally sunset. This informs both the setup and the rules for disbursement and productively simplifies both.
I know we will all have lots of opportunity to discuss this, and all other matters but I did want to interject this at this point. Thank you.
EN
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com
+886.918.211372 <+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032 <+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050 <+1%20908-499-0050> Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
participants (2)
-
James Gannon -
Seun Ojedeji