<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6036" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=653465911-15112010><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Hi Rafik,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=653465911-15112010><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=653465911-15112010><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN class=653465911-15112010><FONT size=2>besides parts of
the content of the motion </FONT></SPAN>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.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=653465911-15112010><FONT face=Arial
size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=de><FONT
size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2>Best regards</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2>Wolf-Ulrich</FONT></SPAN></FONT></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>Stéphane Van
Gelder<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Montag, 15. November 2010 12:16<BR><B>An:</B> Rafik
Dammak<BR><B>Cc:</B> Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO<BR><B>Betreff:</B>
Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I'm sorry, I thought they were suggestions for going forward. I got
the wrong end of the stick ;)
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for explaining Rafik.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stéphane<BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Le 15 nov. 2010 à 12:04, Rafik Dammak a écrit :</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I summarized the discussed points to clarify them, I thought that I
made them more clear for you :)<BR><BR>Rafik<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">The comments you made about working
with staff and the answers given to Chuck's comments.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Did I read that wrong?</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stéphane<BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Le 15 nov. 2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit :</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi Stephane,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>what suggestions? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"
target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">Rafik,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stéphane<BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik Dammak a écrit :</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi Chuck,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>maybe we need to make it more simple, my understanding is
:</DIV>
<DIV>- Working with staff about base fee components and
rationales behind them </DIV>
<DIV>- and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of
those fees waivers</DIV>
<DIV>I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no replacement, I
assume that WG members are willing to do additional task if
needed.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>does it make more sense?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/11/15 Gomes, Chuck <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com"
target=_blank>cgomes@verisign.com</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I'm
confused Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see below.<BR><BR>Chuck<BR>
<DIV><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></DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working
group<BR>><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>> 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></DIV></DIV>[Gomes, Chuck] So you
would consider my amendment friendly if you were<BR>the one to
decide? Correct<BR>
<DIV><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></DIV><FONT color=#888888>[Gomes, Chuck] Now you
oppose my amendment. What am I missing?<BR></FONT>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><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></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>