[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions

[Alan Greenberg]

Hi Elliot,

I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There 
are a lot of unknowns regarding future gTLDs:

- There *may* ba another round or rounds;
- There *may* be auctions
- Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds 
designated for uses similar to in the first round.

All of these would be the result of GNSO PDP(s) 
and Board action, and are out of scope for us, 
regardless of whether we think any or all of this 
would be good (and I am not advocating any of this here).

If all of those were to come to be, then the 
process we are developing *may* be applicable 
(again, a decision WAY out of our scope). Nothing 
that we do should REQUIRE that we must start all 
over again and re-invent this in such a situation.

Alan



At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>  First, I wish to apologize for not being on 
> the call. It has been a crazy couple of weeks as some of you know.
>
>Second, I wish to thank Daniel Dardailler for 
>the excellent summary suggestions below. I agree 
>with almost all of them. There is one place 
>where I would like to add a thought for greater clarity.
>
>One of the two most important things to me in 
>this process is that we recognize that this is a 
>singular opportunity both in scope and in 
>nature. While there may be other opportunities 
>for ICANN to actively dispense money (I 
>personally think a lower budget and annual 
>surplus should be the norm but
..), tthey are 
>not currently part of the process and I have 
>great fear of institutionalizing an “ICANN 
>Charity”. We are looking at a singular event, 
>which is auction excess in the first round of open applications ever.
>
>Any structure(s) we create should naturally 
>sunset. This informs both the setup and the 
>rules for disbursement and productively simplifies both.
>
>I know we will all have lots of opportunity to 
>discuss this, and all other matters but I did 
>want to interject this at this point. Thank you.
>
>EN