[council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Tue Dec 7 23:13:58 UTC 2010

Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is a repost.

Did you consider this as a FA?



>> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41
>> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council at gnso.icann.org
>> Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
>> Rafik/Bill,
>> Do you consider this amendment friendly?
>> Chuck
>> 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
>> All,
>> 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;"
>> Rationale: 
>> 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
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 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?
>> Regards
>> Rafik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101208/21af8676/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list