<html><head></head><body>Fine. as long as it can be overridden should conditions make that desireable. <br>
<br>
I'm old enough to have seen lots of things that the math did not predict...<br>
<br>
Alan <br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On January 29, 2017 12:36:12 PM EST, elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">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.<br /><br />EN<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:<br /> <br /> Hi Elliot,<br /> <br /> I tend to agree with you with one caveat. There are a lot of unknowns regarding future gTLDs:<br /> <br /> - There *may* ba another round or rounds;<br /> - There *may* be auctions<br /> - Any such auctions *may* have their proceeds designated for uses similar to in the first round.<br /> <br /> 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).<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Alan<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At 29/01/2017 10:25 AM, elliot noss wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hello all,<br /> <br /> First, I wish to apologize for not being on the call. It has been a crazy couple of weeks as some of you know.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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<br /></blockquote> ..), tthey are <br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> 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.<br /> <br /> Any structure(s) we create should naturally sunset. This informs both the setup and the rules for disbursement and productively simplifies both.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> EN<br /></blockquote> <br /></blockquote><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>