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

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Tue Sep 5 14:33:12 UTC 2017

Apologies misread the message, as you said the nGTLD reserve is out of scope for this CCWG.


-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] 
Sent: 05 September 2017 15:18
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] lotsa money, was Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP

Sorry, but I don't understand what point you're making here.  I said ICANN should refund the excess application fees, not the auction money.

More to the point, I hope it's clear that the auction pool is the size it is, and that's what we and ICANN have to give away.  I certainly agree with Alan's point that there is plenty of stuff that is in the scope of ICANN's mission but that they wouldn't do in their normal annual budget process.


On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, James Gannon wrote:

> I would recommend that everyone read up on the background docs before we go any further down this route.
> In particular the AGB: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
> 	"The purpose of an auction is to resolve contention in a clear, objective manner. It is planned that costs of the new gTLD program
> 	will offset by fees, so any funds coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as auctions would result (after
> 	paying for the auction process) in additional funding. Any proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses of
> 	funds are determined. Funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN's Mission and Core Values and also allows
> 	ICANN to maintain its not for profit status.
> 	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, 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, 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."
> 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

John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list