[council] JAS amendment

Mary Wong Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Wed Dec 8 20:25:20 UTC 2010

Picking up on Bill's intent, I was going to suggest something along the
lines of:
"(c) make recommendations for managing any auction income that would
take into account the need for applicant support"

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

From: Drake William <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
To:Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
CC:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
<Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>, Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, GNSO Council List
<council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: 12/8/2010 3:16 PM
Subject: [council] JAS amendment

Would this work for you

c) Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds
that may be made available for applicant support through auctions [or
other sources].

So again, not saying anything about the JAS managing/envisioning either
a) a foundation or b) the disposition of auction funds generally.  Just
IF funds are made available through auctions.

On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Drake William wrote:


I would think it necessary for the JAS to be able to consider a basic
framework for how any auction funds that are made available for
applicant support could be managed.  Otherwise, the group's long journey
through the woods ends by standing in front of the castle door without
knocking.  At the same time, it is easy to understand Wolf-Ulrich's view
that, "one can expect many interested community groups expressing their
needs to share that profit where new applicants are one group of it," 
so how a foundation and auctions might work are larger issues that might
better be dealt with through another mechanism.  

Wolf-Ulrich, is there a way to split the difference and make it crystal
clear that we're mandating JAS to only look at how at how any auction
funds could be managed, rather than implying that the JAS might do the
broader work? E.g. "Establishing a general framework for the management
of any funds that may be made available for applicant support through
auctions conducted by a separate ICANN originated foundation" or


On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

Hi Stephane,

unfortunately, I cannot consider the amendment to remove 1.c as
friendly amendment.



2010/12/8 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>

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

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
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?


As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101208/c349e39b/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list