Versions Compared

Old Version 16

changes.mady.by.user Avri Doria

Saved on

compared with

New Version 17

changes.mady.by.user Avri Doria

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Now that it has moved to candidate text, marked as old

...

The two elements in these quotes are obtaining funds that can be used to offset the costs for JAS-qualified applicants and establishing a framework for managing and distributing these funds. In discussing these two objects there is a close link between them, and in many cases it is hard to imagine one of them happening without the first. For example, without funds, there is no purpose in a framework that has been institutionally instantiated, yet without a framework it is impossible to collect funds.

Framework

As stated in the footnote in the Applicant Guidebook, investigations should be held on creating a foundation or fund to handle any auction funds that are not used in the manner described in this comment. Additionally, funds could be obtained from other fundraising opportunities such as the auction of single character second level domain names, or from donations from, e.g. the incumbent gTLD and ccTLD registrars and registries. In the case that such a fund or foundation can be setup in time to provide further funding opportunities for applicants in the later stages of the process, this should be documented at a later stage.

...

Additionally, as recommended in MR1, JAS recommends that ICANN arrange a contract with a professional fundraiser familiar with this sort of international effort to support JAS-qualified applicants, to work with the Board Foundation Working Group.

Funds

Funds for the foundation to mange and distribute can come from a variety of sources:

  • Budget allocation from ICANN, including the USD$ 2,000,000 committed by the ICANN Board.
  • Solicitation of funds to match the initial allocation made by the ICANN Board of Directors
  • Auction proceeds beyond the cost of the running the auction
  • Allocation of funds from ccTLDs
  • Allocations of funds from incumbent gTLD registries and registrars
  • External funding sources
  • Other source yet to be determined

Donors:

Various registrars and registries from both the gNSO and the ccNSO have made statements that if there were a way to donate that could not be gamed, they would be interested in helping. A well-formed fund or foundation could provide an opportunity for such generosity.
Various campaigns are possible. There is, for example, quite a lots of money in the hands of the some of the existing gTLD registries and registrars. We have, for example, seen an escalation in the amount each sponsor gives to the three ICANN meeting this year. There is a lot of funding available, it is just that no one has been doing the requisite fundraising.

Auctions:

Since the GNSO first allowed for auctions as a possible method of resolving gTLD name contention, there has been the intent that these funds be applied to worthy causes including the support for what has now being called JAS-qualified applicants. Thought the quantity of the funds that may result from is unknown and they are certainly not available for the payment of fees in the 2011-2012 rounds, the funding will be available to fill the reserve and risk funds, if those funds are defered to cover the costs for the application fee reductions, as recommended in MR1 and MR2 for the fees of JAS-qualified applicants.

...