[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
Peter Vergote
peter.vergote at dnsbelgium.be
Wed Feb 1 14:23:30 UTC 2017
Elliot,
You are right for sure that we are not going to settle all of this by exchanging a couple of mails ;-)
The mission of the organization I mentioned is not what matters, neither was it any indication of what needs to be done with the funds. I was just giving an example – based upon our experience - that any kind of mechanism used to distribute funds might be more iterative and longer than what could be expected.
Best regs,
Peter
Peter Vergote
Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager
+32 16 29 89 28
+32 474 790096
www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/>
Op 1/02/17 15:08 heeft elliot noss <enoss at tucows.com> geschreven:
and I should note, we are not going to settle this in email and I look forward to meeting you all and discussing this face to face in copenhagen.
EN
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, elliot noss <ENoss at tucows.com> wrote:
>
> "an organization that has as goal to fund projects aimed to bridge the digital divide"
>
> this is not ICANN’s mission. we are dealing with an exception, not the organization’s goal.
>
> EN
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Peter Vergote <peter.vergote at dnsbelgium.be> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have to agree with Daniel here.
>>
>> Years ago we donated a lump sum of money (4 mio EUR) to an organization that has as goal to fund projects aimed to bridge the digital divide. The project plan envisaged a number of calls for projects (to receive funding) over a period of 3 years.
>>
>> In reality the program has run for more than 4,5 years because of:
>>
>> - Efficient cost management;
>> - Lower costs/funding per project than anticipated;
>> - Lesser inflow of projects than anticipated.
>>
>> Even if the auction proceeds would be a one off, chances are that the distribution of funds will be more iterative and may take many years as explained by Daniel.
>>
>> Best regs,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Vergote
>> Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager
>> +32 16 29 89 28
>> +32 474 790096
>> www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/>
>>
>>
>>
>> Op 1/02/17 12:19 heeft ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org namens Daniel Dardailler <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org namens danield at w3.org> geschreven:
>>
>> I think the one-time factor in terms of funding source (which in itself
>> could turn out to be two-time or more, but not our business) doesn't
>> equate to a one-time approach for disbursing these funds.
>>
>> E.g. if the agency we're designing goes for bi-annual periodic calls to
>> give away a slice of the overall source funding available at each call,
>> it could easily last for several years, and several years is kind of our
>> own (the Internet/Web technical community) survival horizon, so hardly
>> something we can call a one-time granting project IMO.
>>
>> At https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds
>> it says that there is 233M in the bank as revenue source.
>> If every six months, each call can grant 23M to various projects (we
>> will have to discuss what is a typical project grant, for what
>> duration), then we already have 5 years of activity for this agency.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-02-01 03:28, Marika Konings wrote:
>>> Dear Waudo,
>>>
>>> Please note that the charter states that:
>>>
>>> “These proceeds are to be considered as an exceptional, one-time
>>> source of revenue”.
>>>
>>> However, you may also be interested in the opinion that Alan (co-chair
>>> of the drafting team that developed the charter) shared in an earlier
>>> thread:
>>>
>>> _“- There *may* be another round or rounds;_
>>>
>>> _- There *may* be auctions_
>>>
>>> _- Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds designated for uses
>>> similar to in the first round._
>>>
>>> _ _
>>>
>>> _All of these would be the result of GNSO PDP(s) and Board action, and
>>> are out of scope for us, regardless of whether we think any or all of
>>> this would be good (and I am not advocating any of this here). If all
>>> of those were to come to be, then the process we are developing *may*
>>> be applicable (again, a decision WAY out of our scope). Nothing that
>>> we do should REQUIRE that we must start all over again and re-invent
>>> this in such a situation.”_
>>>
>>> _ _
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>> FROM: <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces 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
>>> Chair
>>> The Computer Society of Kenya
>>>
>>> Tel: +254722395900
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds
mailing list