[council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Stephane,

unfortunately, I cannot consider the amendment to remove 1.c as friendly
amendment.

Regards

Rafik



2010/12/8 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>

> Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this
> is a repost.
>
> Did you consider this as a FA?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>  *
> *
>
>  ------------------------------
> *Von:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41
> *An:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council at gnso.icann.org
> *Betreff:* RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
>
>  Rafik/Bill,
>  Do you consider this amendment friendly?
>  Chuck
>   *From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:
> owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *KnobenW at telekom.de
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
>   All,
>   I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows:
>   Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration
> etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN
> originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for
> future rounds and ongoing assistance;"
>  Rationale:
>  First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to
> manage any potential new gTLD auction profit.
> As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested
> community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new
> applicants are one group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN
> program could also profit from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS
> security etc.).
>  So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are:
> - it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their
> originally intended scope
> - there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new
> draft charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priority on
> the timescale .
> - as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an
> imbalance
>  As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new
> applicants' general interest in taking part in the distribution of the
> potential auction profit.
>
> I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic
> separately and appropriately.
>
> I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy
> if the amendment could be accepted as friendly .
>
> Save travels to Cartagena
>  Wolf-Ulrich
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *Von:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58
> *An:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
> *Betreff:* regarding your amendment
>  Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>   regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know
> what are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should
> find a better and constructive compromise.what do you think?
>   Regards
>   Rafik
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101208/bacdc27a/attachment.html>