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.
I would recommend that everyone read up on the background docs before we go any further down this route. In particular the AGB: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb "The purpose of an auction is to resolve contention in a clear, objective manner. It is planned that costs of the new gTLD program will offset by fees, so any funds coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as auctions would result (after paying for the auction process) in additional funding. Any proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses of funds are determined. Funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN's Mission and Core Values and also allows ICANN to maintain its not for profit status. 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, 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, 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." 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
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
This text was formulated prior to the mission revision. 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 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
Hi all, The question of "staying within Icann's mission" or "going outside Icann's mission" may look as a valid discussion, but I think we actually talk about "one and the same mission". Realize that the likelyhood of achieving Icann's mission is more and more dependant on how the 'whole Internet' is performing. So what would be the sense of only supporting 'Icann-mission-fitting-projects' (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols), while in the mean time the Internet may collapse under e.g. cybercrimes and cyberwarfare ? I would state that the whole Internet desperately needs this extra money to keep the complete Internet eco-system alive, which then also supports the Icann mission of keeping the DNS-system alive. Regards, Marc Op 5-9-2017 om 12:31 schreef James Gannon:
This text was formulated prior to the mission revision.
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 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
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam
Hi I agree with Marc, Daniel, and others what we are doing is already within the icann mission, we just see the mission as broader than others as both Daniel and Marc have said. We do need to do a better job at explaining to the Board our views do that it is clear to them that we are on the same page. Best Judith Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Marc Gauw <marc.gauw@nlnet.nl> wrote:
Hi all,
The question of "staying within Icann's mission" or "going outside Icann's mission" may look as a valid discussion, but I think we actually talk about "one and the same mission".
Realize that the likelyhood of achieving Icann's mission is more and more dependant on how the 'whole Internet' is performing.
So what would be the sense of only supporting 'Icann-mission-fitting-projects' (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols), while in the mean time the Internet may collapse under e.g. cybercrimes and cyberwarfare ?
I would state that the whole Internet desperately needs this extra money to keep the complete Internet eco-system alive, which then also supports the Icann mission of keeping the DNS-system alive.
Regards, Marc
Op 5-9-2017 om 12:31 schreef James Gannon:
This text was formulated prior to the mission revision.
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 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
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- Marc Gauw, Directeur Stichting NLnet + 31 6 24 874 224 + 31 20 888 4252 marc.gauw@nlnet.nl Science Park 400 1098 XH Amsterdam
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
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
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
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 ?
As someone who "signed/agreed to the text in the first place" numerous times, I don't think that most of the examples in the Applicant Guidebook are "invalid" at all. Stated Examples: 1. "Grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities in subsequent gTLD rounds." (IN MISSION) 2. "Creation of an ICANN-adminitstered/community-based fund for specific projects for the benefit of the Internet Community." (COULD BE IN MISSION) 3. "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." (IN MISSION) 4. "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." (IN MISSION) Jon
On Sep 5, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
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
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Doesn't add much value but a big +1 to Jon here and is in line with other registries that I have spoken to. -J -----Original Message----- From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: 05 September 2017 14:13 To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> Cc: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP
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 ?
As someone who "signed/agreed to the text in the first place" numerous times, I don't think that most of the examples in the Applicant Guidebook are "invalid" at all. Stated Examples: 1. "Grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities in subsequent gTLD rounds." (IN MISSION) 2. "Creation of an ICANN-adminitstered/community-based fund for specific projects for the benefit of the Internet Community." (COULD BE IN MISSION) 3. "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." (IN MISSION) 4. "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." (IN MISSION) Jon
On Sep 5, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
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
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
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
+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-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto:johnl@iecc.com>> CC: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 <> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto: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
On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote:
Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon
There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a real option.
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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [3]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
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Hello Daniel/Jon On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote:
Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon
SO: Thanks for clarification Jon
There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a real option.
SO: If by "real option" you mean using auction proceed to refund applicants, I don't see why that should be an option at all. Regards
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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [3]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
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On 2017-09-05 16:50, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Daniel/Jon
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote:
Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon
SO: Thanks for clarification Jon
There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a real option.
SO: If by "real option" you mean using auction proceed to refund applicants, I don't see why that should be an option at all.
No, I meant using the application legal surplus to refund the applicants (in the 130M); is that a valid option that could be implemented ?
Regards
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 [3] [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 [1] _alt email: [3]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 [3]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [2]seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng_
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Links: ------ [1] tel:%2B2348035233535 [2] http://goog_1872880453 [3] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Even if it was its out of scope for this group. -----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 05 September 2017 16:01 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> 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 16:50, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Daniel/Jon
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote:
Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon
SO: Thanks for clarification Jon
There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a real option.
SO: If by "real option" you mean using auction proceed to refund applicants, I don't see why that should be an option at all.
No, I meant using the application legal surplus to refund the applicants (in the 130M); is that a valid option that could be implemented ?
Regards
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 [3] [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 [1] _alt email: [3]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 [3]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [2]seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng_
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Links: ------ [1] tel:%2B2348035233535 [2] http://goog_1872880453 [3] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Indeed. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:16 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Even if it was its out of scope for this group.
-----Original Message----- From: ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler Sent: 05 September 2017 16:01 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> 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 16:50, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Daniel/Jon
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 16:21, Jon Nevett wrote:
Sean: No refunds from the auction proceeds were committed to or anticipated. Not sure where this idea is coming from. Jon
SO: Thanks for clarification Jon
There was a mixup in the thread at some point between refunding the applicants of the surplus of applicant fees, and refunding the applicants going to auctions using the auction benefits. I think the second is clearly out but I'm still wondering if the first one is a real option.
SO: If by "real option" you mean using auction proceed to refund applicants, I don't see why that should be an option at all.
No, I meant using the application legal surplus to refund the applicants (in the 130M); is that a valid option that could be implemented ?
Regards
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 [3] [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 [1] _alt email: [3]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 [3]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3] [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [3]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [2]seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng_
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Links: ------ [1] tel:%2B2348035233535 [2] http://goog_1872880453 [3] 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
Indeed, we don't even need to discuss this topic further. Erika On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
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-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <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
On 2017-09-05 17:17, Erika Mann wrote:
Indeed, we don't even need to discuss this topic further.
I agree it's out of scope. Can we just be pointed to the place where these application fees refund discussions are happening ? (e.g. in another ICANN group). Thanks.
Erika
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [3]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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
I really don't know Daniel. I heard sometimes people arguing for this but I never noticed that this topic is debated. Maybe someone else knows more. Erika On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 17:17, Erika Mann wrote:
Indeed, we don't even need to discuss this topic further.
I agree it's out of scope.
Can we just be pointed to the place where these application fees refund discussions are happening ? (e.g. in another ICANN group). Thanks.
Erika
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng [2] Mobile: +2348035233535 _alt email: [3]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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [2] http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ [3] http://goog_1872880453/ _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
Daniel, you may be interested in the following letter that Akram Atallah sent to the RySG (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-diaz-29aug17-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-diaz-29aug17-en.pdf)>) which includes the following paragraph that may answer your question: “As you are aware, the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program is still underway, and a portion of the remaining funds are required for the ongoing operation of the program. As noted in ICANN’s FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, ICANN expects to have spent approximately $214 million on the Program, including “hard-to-predict” costs incurred in FY18 and in the future. To date, ICANN has spent Program funds on a range of previously unforeseen expenses including the formation and coordination of the Universal Acceptance Steering Group, Emergency Back - End Registry Operator Program operations, studies and mitigation plans relating to Name Collision, implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, support for the administration of ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, and legal fees and costs relating to the New gTLD Program. The remaining Program funds are intended to cover operating expenses and future unanticipated costs such as those listed above, which continue to occur on an ongoing basis. We do not yet know how much of the New gTLD Program remaining funds will be required to address future unanticipated expenses, and by when. As such, at this time, ICANN is not in a position to commit to the dispensation of any potential remaining funds from the New gTLD Program applications fees.” Best regards, Marika On 9/5/17, 09:24, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of danield@w3.org> wrote: On 2017-09-05 17:17, Erika Mann wrote: > Indeed, we don't even need to discuss this topic further. I agree it's out of scope. Can we just be pointed to the place where these application fees refund discussions are happening ? (e.g. in another ICANN group). Thanks. > > Erika > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote: > >> 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 [1] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] >> >> -- >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=DwICA... [2] >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> _alt email: [3]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 [1] > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng_&d=DwIC... > [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453_&d=DwI... > _______________________________________________ > 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
Thx. On 2017-09-05 20:48, Marika Konings wrote:
Daniel, you may be interested in the following letter that Akram Atallah sent to the RySG (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-diaz-29aug17... [1]) which includes the following paragraph that may answer your question:
_“As you are aware, the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program is still underway, and a portion of the remaining funds are required for the ongoing operation of the program. As noted in _
_ICANN’s FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, ICANN expects to have spent approximately $214 million on the Program, including “hard-to-predict” costs incurred in FY18 and in the future. To _
_date, ICANN has spent Program funds on a range of previously unforeseen expenses including the formation and coordination of the Universal Acceptance Steering Group, Emergency Back_
_- End Registry Operator Program operations, studies and mitigation plans relating to Name Collision, implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, support for the administration of ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, and legal fees and costs relating to the New gTLD Program. The remaining Program funds are intended to cover operating expenses and future _
_unanticipated costs such as those listed above, which continue to occur on an ongoing basis. _
_ _
_We do not yet know how much of the New gTLD Program remaining funds will be required to address future unanticipated expenses, and by when. As such, at this time, ICANN is not in a _
_position to commit to the dispensation of any potential remaining funds from the New gTLD Program applications fees.”_
_ _
Best regards,
Marika
_ _
On 9/5/17, 09:24, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of danield@w3.org> wrote:
On 2017-09-05 17:17, Erika Mann wrote:
> Indeed, we don't even need to discuss this topic further.
I agree it's out of scope.
Can we just be pointed to the place where these application fees refund
discussions are happening ? (e.g. in another ICANN group). Thanks.
>
> Erika
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
>
>> 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 [1]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
>>
>> --
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=DwICA... [2]
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> _alt email: [3]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 [1]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
> [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng_&d=DwIC...
> [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453_&d=DwI...
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Links: ------ [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-diaz-29aug17...)
participants (9)
-
Alberto Soto -
Daniel Dardailler -
Erika Mann -
James Gannon -
Jon Nevett -
Judith Hellerstein -
Marc Gauw -
Marika Konings -
Seun Ojedeji