<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6036" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=432253114-15112010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks both Avri and Rafik for bringing more light to the
process.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN lang=de><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Wolf-Ulrich</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=de dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>Von:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>Im Auftrag von </B>Rafik
Dammak<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Montag, 15. November 2010 14:39<BR><B>An:</B>
Council GNSO<BR><B>Betreff:</B> Fwd: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS
working group<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I am forwarding Avri response to Wolf.</DIV>
<DIV>I want to add that we discussed about the need of motion and its
process in the WG and the need to contact the chartering
organizations either in confcalls or group mailing list.</DIV>
<DIV>I want to thank Wolf for his interest to follow the WG in regard last
confcall and also for trusting us. </DIV>
<DIV>I am glad for the increasing interest on JAS WG report&further
work, I hoped that I had more questions and feedback last time when I
made updates during GNSO council confcall.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR>From: <B
class=gmail_sendername>Avri Doria</B> <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:avri@psg.com"
target=_blank>avri@psg.com</A>></SPAN><BR>Date: 2010/11/15<BR>Subject:
Re: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group<BR>To: Wolf Knoben
<<A href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de"
target=_blank>KnobenW@telekom.de</A>><BR>Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <<A
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"
target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>>, Rafik Dammak <<A
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target=_blank>rafik.dammak@gmail.com</A>>, Chuck Gomes <<A
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target=_blank>cgomes@verisign.com</A>>,
<A href="mailto:evan@telly.org" target=_blank>evan@telly.org</A>, carlos
aguirre <<A href="mailto:carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com"
target=_blank>carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com</A>><BR><BR><BR>Dear
Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR>Once again removed the council list as I have no posting
rights. Feel free to forward if you believe it is
appropriate.<BR><BR>While the motion itself was only discussed briefly at
the last call, the points in it were discussed at greater length when they
were put in the report as Next Steps. So the issue in the call, was
whether the rewording of the motion from Next Steps of the report to motion
language had changed the meaning any.<BR><BR>There were not objections
either in the call, or on the list.<BR><BR>cheers,<BR><FONT
color=#888888><BR>a.<BR></FONT>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR>On 15 Nov 2010, at 13:46, <<A
href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de" target=_blank>KnobenW@telekom.de</A>>
<<A href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de"
target=_blank>KnobenW@telekom.de</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi
Rafik,<BR>><BR>> besides parts of the content of the motion I'm also
still confused about the chartering process. As the council is supposed to
"manage" the process I expect the draft motion having been discussed in
detail in advance by the JAS-WG. I understand a similar approach to be taken
by ALAC the other WG partner.<BR>> Following the recordings of the JAS-WG
meeting on Nov 09 my impression is that there might be a lack of WG
discussion about the draft charter presented. Taking my role as policy
process "manager" seriously I personally have a problem to deal with matters
knitted in a hurry. But may be I'm wrong, and you can dispel my
doubts.<BR>><BR>> Best regards<BR>> Wolf-Ulrich<BR>><BR>>
Von: <A href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van
Gelder<BR>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 12:16<BR>> An: Rafik
Dammak<BR>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO<BR>> Betreff:
Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group<BR>><BR>> I'm sorry,
I thought they were suggestions for going forward. I got the wrong end of
the stick ;)<BR>><BR>> Thanks for explaining Rafik.<BR>><BR>>
Stéphane<BR>><BR>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 12:04, Rafik Dammak a écrit
:<BR>><BR>>> Hi,<BR>>><BR>>> I summarized the discussed
points to clarify them, I thought that I made them more clear for you
:)<BR>>><BR>>> Rafik<BR>>><BR>>> 2010/11/15 Stéphane
Van Gelder <<A href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"
target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>><BR>>> The comments
you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's
comments.<BR>>><BR>>> Did I read that
wrong?<BR>>><BR>>> Stéphane<BR>>><BR>>> Le 15 nov.
2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit :<BR>>><BR>>>> Hi
Stephane,<BR>>>><BR>>>> what
suggestions?<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
Rafik<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <<A
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"
target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>><BR>>>>
Rafik,<BR>>>><BR>>>> Sorry if this is a stupid question,
but I'm confused as well. Are these suggestions from the working group, or
from Avri and yourself?<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Thanks,<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Stéphane<BR>>>><BR>>>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik
Dammak a écrit :<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Hi
Chuck,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> maybe we need to make it more
simple, my understanding is :<BR>>>>> - Working with staff
about base fee components and rationales behind them<BR>>>>> -
and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of those fees
waivers<BR>>>>> I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no
replacement, I assume that WG members are willing to do additional task if
needed.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> does it make more
sense?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Rafik<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> 2010/11/15
Gomes, Chuck <<A href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com"
target=_blank>cgomes@verisign.com</A>><BR>>>>> I'm confused
Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see
below.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Chuck<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:<A
href="mailto:avri@psg.com"
target=_blank>avri@psg.com</A>]<BR>>>>>> Sent: Sunday,
November 14, 2010 10:51 AM<BR>>>>>> To: Gomes,
Chuck<BR>>>>>> Cc: <A href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target=_blank>rafik.dammak@gmail.com</A>; William Drake; <A
href="mailto:evan@telly.org" target=_blank>evan@telly.org</A>;
carlos<BR>>>>>> aguirre<BR>>>>>> Subject: Re:
[council] Announcement from JAS working
group<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Hi
Chuck,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Again off list as per
my posting rights. Feel free to forward it, if<BR>>>>>>
that is seen as an appropriate thing to do. And please forgive me
for<BR>>>>>> answering a question asked of Rafik.
Jumping in where I don't belong<BR>>>>>> is a bad habit
I have not conquered yet.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
There are two different questions
here.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> 1. In the
recommendations we have made already, there are
recommended<BR>>>>>> fee reductions based on the notion that
various fees, like program<BR>>>>>> development costs
for a program they are currently excluded from, are<BR>>>>>>
not appropriate fees to charge applicants from developing
countries.<BR>>>>>> While staff and the Board have indicated
that these recommendations<BR>>>>> are<BR>>>>>>
non starters, the WG has continued in recommending them, and we
await<BR>>>>>> comments on the proposal to do so. Your
suggestion for work items<BR>>>>> that<BR>>>>>>
would look into the basis on which these fee reductions might be
made,<BR>>>>>> as you laid out in your message, is a work
item that was neither in<BR>>>>> our<BR>>>>>>
previous charter, nor is it currently in the charter the JAS WG
is<BR>>>>>> proposing the the GNSO council and to the ALAC.
That is why in my<BR>>>>>> previous message I indicated
that perhaps this is a work item you wish<BR>>>>>> to add.
Specifically:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine
how<BR>>>>>> the fee waivers would be
funded."<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Of course it is not
for me to say, but I would not see why adding this<BR>>>>>>
work item might not be considered friendly.<BR>>>>> [Gomes,
Chuck] So you would consider my amendment friendly if you
were<BR>>>>> the one to decide?
Correct<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
2. One part of the fee that we did not have the ability to
understand<BR>>>>>> was the $100, 000 USD base fee. I
might note, that many people before<BR>>>>>> us have had the
same questions we had, so we are not alone in not<BR>>>>>>
understanding this fee. There are members in the group who
believe<BR>>>>> that<BR>>>>>> some portion of
this fee may also be inappropriate for developing<BR>>>>>>
economies, but as we do not understand the full basis of this fee,
we<BR>>>>>> cannot make recommendations in this regard.
The charter item:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
"Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee
to<BR>>>>> determine<BR>>>>>> its full origin and
to determine what percentage of that fee could be<BR>>>>>>
waived for applicants meeting the requirements for
assistance."<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Is a work item
that requires the JAS WG to work more closely with<BR>>>>>
staff<BR>>>>>> to understand the components of this fee and
to see whether any parts<BR>>>>>> of that fee are
inappropriate for applicants from developing<BR>>>>>
economies.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> So changing this
charter item as you suggest, is something I do not<BR>>>>>>
understand and would not personally support, again not that
that<BR>>>>>> matters.<BR>>>>> [Gomes, Chuck] Now
you oppose my amendment. What am I
missing?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Best regards,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
a.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
On 14 Nov 2010, at 14:05, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Rafik,<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Here is my
thinking on the second amendment:<BR>>>>>>> *
Any waiving of fees will reduce the funds available
for<BR>>>>>> processing
applications.<BR>>>>>>> *
Because the fees were calculated to cover actual<BR>>>>>>
application processing costs and assuming that the calculations
are<BR>>>>>> accurate, there may be a shortfall of funds to
cover application<BR>>>>>> processing
costs.<BR>>>>>>> * How will
that shortfall be covered?<BR>>>>>>> *
Keep in mind that there are no specifically
designated<BR>>>>>> funds budgeted in the regular ICANN
budget for application processing.<BR>>>>>>> *
In proposing the amendment there was no intention on
my<BR>>>>>> part to pass judgment on the motion itself;
rather, it seemed to me<BR>>>>>> that if there is a
shortfall, we should find out whether that has an<BR>>>>>>
impact, and if so, have some idea how that impact will be
mitigated.<BR>>>>>>> * All the
amendment does is add another task for the JAS WG,<BR>>>>>>
asking the group to work with Staff to get information on the new
gTLD<BR>>>>>> budget implications if fees are waived and
explore ways to mitigate<BR>>>>>> those impacts, if
any.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Does this
help?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:<A href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target=_blank>rafik.dammak@gmail.com</A>]<BR>>>>>>> Sent:
Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:42 AM<BR>>>>>>> To: Council
GNSO<BR>>>>>>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; William
Drake<BR>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from
JAS working group<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Hello,<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> I am
forwarding Avri's answers to Chuck's questions which are
below.<BR>>>>>>> For the first amendment, I accept the
first one as friendly.<BR>>>>>>> about the second ones, I
am not understanding the aim, maybe other<BR>>>>>> rewording
can work?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Regards<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Rafik<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
2010/11/13 Avri Doria <<A href="mailto:avri@psg.com"
target=_blank>avri@psg.com</A>><BR>>>>>>> Dear
Chuck,<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Some initial
answers from my perspective as one of the
co-chairs.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Of course
I do not have Council list posting rights, and am not
even<BR>>>>>> sure whether Rafik and Bill would want my
raw answers passed on
raw.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> A reminder, as
a Joint AC/SO WG this motion is also being put
before<BR>>>>>> ALAC. Any changes etc will eventually
need to be ironed out between<BR>>>>>> the two
groups.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> My comments
in-line.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
On 12 Nov 2010, at 09:39, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> In
advance of our consideration of this motion I want to propose
a<BR>>>>>> couple amendments (re just a typo) and ask a few
questions that<BR>>>>>> hopefully can be answered on the list
before our meeting on the
18th.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Resolved 1(a)<BR>>>>>>>> *
The second sentence of this part of the resolution
says,<BR>>>>>> "Financial need has been established as the
primary criterion for<BR>>>>>> support. The group should be
argumented to have the necessary<BR>>>>>
expertise<BR>>>>>> to make a specific recommendation in this
area, especially given the<BR>>>>>> comparative economic
conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this<BR>>>>>>
requirement."<BR>>>>>>>> *
Proposed amendment (typo correction): In 1(a)
under<BR>>>>>> Resolved, change 'argumented' to
'augmented'.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Yes,
Thank you for catching
that.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> *
Have the experts needed been identified yet? If
not,<BR>>>>> how<BR>>>>>> will they be
identified?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> No.
There have been some background conversations with Staff
about<BR>>>>>> this and there was an offer of help in terms
of bringing in some<BR>>>>>> visitors to the group to discuss
various issues. Discussing the type<BR>>>>>> of
expertise needed would be an initial item for the
WG.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> *
Is it anticipated that adding experts will
require<BR>>>>>> funding? If so, from where would the
funding come?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> It has
not been anticipated that there will be an expense. But
if<BR>>>>>> there is, we do not have any idea of where
funding would come from.<BR>>>>>> Perhaps Karla can let us
know if there is any funding in the new<BR>>>>>
budget<BR>>>>>> for such support if
needed.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> It is also
possible that there are volunteers either within the<BR>>>>>
ICANN<BR>>>>>> community or outside of it who could be
brought in without expenses. I<BR>>>>>> tend to look at this
whole process of trying to get help for<BR>>>>>
applicants<BR>>>>>> from developing regions as pro-bono work.
If the charter extensions<BR>>>>>> are approved, I
expect I will make an outreach to people I know, as
I<BR>>>>>> expect others in the group
would.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Resolved 1(c)<BR>>>>>>>> *
The resolution says, "Establishing a framework,<BR>>>>>
including<BR>>>>>> a possible recommendation for a separate
ICANN originated foundation,<BR>>>>>> for managing any
auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and<BR>>>>>>
ongoing assistance".<BR>>>>>>>> *
What does 'ICANN originated foundation'
mean?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> The specifics
are far from clear and hence the work item. There
has<BR>>>>>> been a conversation for a long while, including
the days of GNSO<BR>>>>> policy<BR>>>>>> making
and in some of the DAG discussions, that processing any
funds<BR>>>>>> gained in auctions beyond costs might be
best dealt with outside of<BR>>>>>> normal ICANN budgeting
and accounting. This item recommends that
we<BR>>>>>> start working on those idea, including the idea
of an independent<BR>>>>>> foundation set up by ICANN for
just this purpose. Of course we are<BR>>>>>> also
looking for funds beyond just auction proceeds, but the source
of<BR>>>>>> those funds is as of yet unclear, and hence a
work item.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> *
Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN
General<BR>>>>>> Council's
office?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Not that I
know of. Does looking into this need to be vetted
with<BR>>>>>> them? Certainly they would need to be
part of any discussions and<BR>>>>>> planning, and of course
execution if such were ultimately recommended<BR>>>>>> and
approved, but do GNSO and ALAC need their permission to talk
about<BR>>>>>> it? This is not consensus policy that
affects contractual conditions.<BR>>>>>> All the JAS WG can
do is make recommendation to our chartering<BR>>>>>>
organizations, the community and the
Board.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Resolved 1(h)<BR>>>>>>>> *
The resolution says, "Review the basis of the
US$100,000<BR>>>>>> application base fee to determine its
full origin and to determine<BR>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>> percentage of that fee could be waived for
applicants meeting the<BR>>>>>> requirements for
assistance."<BR>>>>>>>> *
Understanding that the application fees are intended
to<BR>>>>>> cover application processing costs and no more,
from where is it<BR>>>>>> envisioned that the offset of the
fee waivers would
come?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> This was
discussed in the recommendations themselves. The<BR>>>>>
suggestion<BR>>>>>> is in keeping with the GNSO policy
decision that while the program<BR>>>>>> needs to be self
funding as a whole, there can be differential fees<BR>>>>>>
paid by the
applicants.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> For each
of the fees that the JAS WG has recommended being waived<BR>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>> applicants who meet the criteria, there is a
reason for why that fee<BR>>>>>> would not be appropriate for
someone from a developing region to have<BR>>>>>> to
pay.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> In terms of
this US$100,000 fee, however,that basis of that fee
was<BR>>>>>> not clear and hence the need to investigate the
basis of that fee<BR>>>>>> further to see if any parts of it
are not appropriate for those from<BR>>>>>> developing
regions.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
* Proposed amendment: Add a new sentence that
says, "Work<BR>>>>>> with the ICANN new gTLD implementation
staff to determine how the fee<BR>>>>>> waivers would be
funded."<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> I would not
think this an equivalent
item.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> This could be
another work item,
however..<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
If the answers to the questions can be provided in advance of
the<BR>>>>>> Council meeting on 18 November, I think the
chances of acting on this<BR>>>>>> motion on the 18th will be
increased and the sooner the better so that<BR>>>>>>
Councilors can provide the answers to their respective
groups.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Rafik/Bill: Do you consider the two proposed amendments
as<BR>>>>>>
friendly?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Chuck<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Thanks<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
a.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>