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

Daniel Dardailler danield at w3.org
Tue Sep 5 12:50:36 UTC 2017

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

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list