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

Marc Gauw marc.gauw at nlnet.nl
Tue Sep 5 10:42:41 UTC 2017

Hi all,

The question of "staying within Icann's mission" or "going outside
Icann's mission" may look as a valid discussion, but I think we actually
talk about "one and the same mission".

Realize that the likelyhood of achieving Icann's mission is more and
more dependant on how the 'whole Internet' is performing.

So what would be the sense of only supporting
'Icann-mission-fitting-projects' (i.e. only DNS, IP, protocols), while
in the mean time the Internet may collapse under e.g. cybercrimes and
cyberwarfare  ?

I would state that the whole Internet desperately needs this extra money
to keep the complete Internet eco-system alive, which then also supports
the Icann mission of keeping the DNS-system alive.


Op 5-9-2017 om 12:31 schreef James Gannon:
> This text was formulated prior to the mission revision.
> 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

Marc Gauw,
Directeur Stichting NLnet
+ 31 6 24 874 224
+ 31 20 888 4252
marc.gauw at nlnet.nl
Science Park 400
1098 XH  Amsterdam

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list