[council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Dec 2 11:41:15 UTC 2010



Do you consider this amendment friendly?




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





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;"




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

- 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






		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?





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101202/42ae5b5a/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list