<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks Rafik. I am not stuck to my wording so please feel free
to reword the amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Rafik Dammak
[mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 15, 2010 4:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Avri Doria; William Drake; evan@telly.org; carlos aguirre; Council
GNSO<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chuck,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>maybe we need to make it more simple, my understanding is :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>- Working with staff about base fee components and
rationales behind them <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>- and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of
those fees waivers<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no replacement,
I assume that WG members are willing to do additional task if needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>does it make more sense?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Rafik<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2010/11/15 Gomes, Chuck <<a
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I'm confused Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see below.<br>
<br>
Chuck<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@psg.com">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">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>;
William Drake; <a href="mailto:evan@telly.org">evan@telly.org</a>; carlos<br>
> aguirre<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working
group<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>[Gomes, Chuck] So you would consider my amendment friendly
if you were<br>
the one to decide? Correct<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#888888'>[Gomes, Chuck] Now you oppose my
amendment. What am I missing?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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">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">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>
> ><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>