[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
enoss at tucows.com
Wed Feb 1 12:46:49 UTC 2017
the problem is that subsequent rounds are remote and uncertain in both time and money. the mechanisms for giving away a certain $150m are different than a periodic (and uncertain) $23m.
as the below states, we will always be welcome to follow practices developed here in subsequent rounds. we should neither i) make more work for ourselves than we need nor ii) institutionalize an "ICANN charity”.
our focus should be on making a meaningful difference in the world with this (very) large pot of money.
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:19 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:
> I think the one-time factor in terms of funding source (which in itself could turn out to be two-time or more, but not our business) doesn't equate to a one-time approach for disbursing these funds.
> E.g. if the agency we're designing goes for bi-annual periodic calls to give away a slice of the overall source funding available at each call, it could easily last for several years, and several years is kind of our own (the Internet/Web technical community) survival horizon, so hardly something we can call a one-time granting project IMO.
> At https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds
> it says that there is 233M in the bank as revenue source.
> If every six months, each call can grant 23M to various projects (we will have to discuss what is a typical project grant, for what duration), then we already have 5 years of activity for this agency.
> On 2017-02-01 03:28, Marika Konings wrote:
>> Dear Waudo,
>> Please note that the charter states that:
>> “These proceeds are to be considered as an exceptional, one-time
>> source of revenue”.
>> However, you may also be interested in the opinion that Alan (co-chair
>> of the drafting team that developed the charter) shared in an earlier
>> _“- There *may* be another round or rounds;_
>> _- There *may* be auctions_
>> _- Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds designated for uses
>> similar to in the first round._
>> _ _
>> _All of these would be the result of GNSO PDP(s) and Board action, and
>> are out of scope for us, regardless of whether we think any or all of
>> this would be good (and I am not advocating any of this here). If all
>> of those were to come to be, then the process we are developing *may*
>> be applicable (again, a decision WAY out of our scope). Nothing that
>> we do should REQUIRE that we must start all over again and re-invent
>> this in such a situation.”_
>> _ _
>> Best regards,
>> FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of waudo
>> siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com>
>> DATE: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 1:24 AM
>> TO: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>> Dear all,
>> I missed the call but I am impressed by the progress that was made.
>> Reading the action points/discussion notes I think our focus now
>> should be on expanding and finalizing Item 5 - Workplan. I suggest we
>> set a deadline for having the workplan in place and also focus on this
>> item on the next call.
>> I have a question on scope meantime. Probably those in the group who
>> may have participated in the formulation of the charter could be of
>> help: Is this exercise confined to the proceeds of the first round
>> auctions or do we need to come up with a mechanism encompassing any
>> future rollout scenarios (currently not known). The Charter just
>> refers to "new gTLDAuction Proceeds".
>> Kind Regards,
>> Waudo Siganga
>> The Computer Society of Kenya
>> Tel: +254722395900
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds