[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

[James Gannon]

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 at w3.org] 
Sent: 05 September 2017 13:51
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 at w3.org]
> Sent: 05 September 2017 11:27
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Cc: John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com>; ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 at icann.org
>> [mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel 
>> Dardailler
>> Sent: 05 September 2017 10:56
>> To: John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
>> Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at 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 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds