<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">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<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 class="h5"><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="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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>