[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Input on Questions

[Alan Greenberg]

Fine. as long as it can be overridden should conditions make that desireable. 

I'm old enough to have seen lots of things that the math did not predict...

Alan 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On January 29, 2017 12:36:12 PM EST, elliot noss <enoss at tucows.com> wrote:
>While all that is true, simply given the math, the structure (first
>round = most desirable) and the market conditions, this round will be
>singular in size/scale. Using what we do as a model is never precluded,
>but what is important is to bake sunsetting into any structure we use.
>
>EN
>
>> On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Elliot,
>> 
>> I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There are a lot of unknowns
>regarding future gTLDs:
>> 
>> - There *may* ba another round or rounds;
>> - There *may* be auctions
>> - Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds designated for uses
>similar to in the first round.
>> 
>> All of these would be the result of GNSO PDP(s) and Board action, and
>are out of scope for us, regardless of whether we think any or all of
>this would be good (and I am not advocating any of this here).
>> 
>> If all of those were to come to be, then the process we are
>developing *may* be applicable (again, a decision WAY out of our
>scope). Nothing that we do should REQUIRE that we must start all over
>again and re-invent this in such a situation.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> First, I wish to apologize for not being on the call. It has been a
>crazy couple of weeks as some of you know.
>>> 
>>> Second, I wish to thank Daniel Dardailler for the excellent summary
>suggestions below. I agree with almost all of them. There is one place
>where I would like to add a thought for greater clarity.
>>> 
>>> One of the two most important things to me in this process is that
>we recognize that this is a singular opportunity both in scope and in
>nature. While there may be other opportunities for ICANN to actively
>dispense money (I personally think a lower budget and annual surplus
>should be the norm but
>> ..), tthey are 
>>> not currently part of the process and I have great fear of
>institutionalizing an â?oICANN Charityâ?. We are looking at a singular
>event, which is auction excess in the first round of open applications
>ever.
>>> 
>>> Any structure(s) we create should naturally sunset. This informs
>both the setup and the rules for disbursement and productively
>simplifies both.
>>> 
>>> I know we will all have lots of opportunity to discuss this, and all
>other matters but I did want to interject this at this point. Thank
>you.
>>> 
>>> EN
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170129/b6c63a29/attachment-0001.html>