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

[James Gannon]

Doesn't add much value but a big +1 to Jon here and is in line with other registries that I have spoken to.
-J

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon at donuts.email] 
Sent: 05 September 2017 14:13
To: Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org>
Cc: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>; 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

> 
> 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 ?
> 

As someone who "signed/agreed to the text in the first place" numerous times, I don't think that most of the examples in the Applicant Guidebook are "invalid" at all.

Stated Examples:

1.	"Grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities in subsequent gTLD rounds." (IN MISSION)
2.	"Creation of an ICANN-adminitstered/community-based fund for specific projects for the benefit of the Internet Community." (COULD BE IN MISSION)
3.	"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." (IN MISSION)
4.	"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." (IN MISSION)

Jon

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Dardailler <danield at w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds