[council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Sat Dec 4 17:30:51 UTC 2010

There is a session this afternoon on JAS and VI. 



From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 11:27 AM
To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com; KnobenW at telekom.de <KnobenW at telekom.de> 
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension 

Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday?


Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions?


Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension




we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks:


"c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants.  This framework could include  a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation.  As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants  also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds."


what do you think?





2010/12/2 <KnobenW at telekom.de>




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 are:

- 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/20101204/30b702f3/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list