NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:52:11 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Colleague Stakeholders 

Thinking Past ICANN/PIR/.org

I would like to put on the table an idea for going forward. The idea involves benefiting from two streams of activity, interest and concern within ICANN.  

While NCSG is wrestling with the fact that the non-profit PIR ownership of the .org registry is likely to end up in the private sector, the ccWG dealing with new gTLD auction proceeds is wrestling with the three proposed Mechanisms for administering the grant funding process. Mechanism C involves the setting up of an independent Foundation, the other two A & B involve either an ICANN in-house structure, or a partnership with an experienced partner. 

The Foundation (Mechanism C) option has dropped the idea that a foundation would have a continued existence. It would terminate when the auction proceeds were exhausted. This is based in part on the fact that there is no assurance of subsequent auction proceeds. 

While the following idea may be seen as a bit like “tossing a fox into a hen house” or “turning a bull lose in a china shop”, I think it has some merit.

How about ICANN creating a newGTLD registry that is contractually bound to remain non-profit and exclusively serves the interests of the social enterprise, non-profit, community-based domain name holder community? This could be worked up within a ccWG charged with that task and need not be bound to a subsequent gTLD round.

If such an idea were attractive the registry could be based in a Foundation (say, Mechanism C) that handled the new gTLD auction proceeds and was the registry (i.e., had two lines of work). The Foundation would then have an ongoing revenue stream to carry on the mission and vision envisioned for the auction proceeds, and possess the procedures for grant allocation that had been developed and refined within the distribution of the auction proceeds. Again, I recognize that current thought has Mechanism C (Foundation) with a finite life, but new circumstances require new thoughts. 

Food for thought. 

Sam Lanfranco 


------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honored
in an unjust state" -Confucius
 邦有道,贫且贱焉,耻也。邦无道,富且贵焉,耻也
------------------------------------------------
Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2