FW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Sun Nov 14 16:39:14 UTC 2010

Forward for Avri with thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: rafik.dammak at gmail.com; William Drake; evan at telly.org; carlos
Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

Hi Chuck,

Again off list as per my posting rights.  Feel free to forward it, if
that is seen as an appropriate thing to do.  And please forgive me for
answering a question asked of Rafik.  Jumping in where I don't belong is
a bad habit I have not conquered yet.

There are two different questions here.

1.  In the recommendations we have made already, there are recommended
fee reductions based on the notion that various fees, like program
development  costs for a program they are currently excluded from, are
not appropriate fees to charge applicants from developing countries.
While staff and the Board have indicated that these recommendations are
non starters, the WG has continued in recommending them, and we await
comments on the proposal to do so.  Your suggestion for work items that
would look into the basis on which these fee reductions might be made,
as you laid out in your message, is a work item that was neither in our
previous charter, nor is it currently in the charter the JAS WG is
proposing the the GNSO council and to the ALAC.  That is why in my
previous message I indicated that perhaps this is a work item you wish
to add.   Specifically:

> Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the
fee waivers would be funded."

Of course it is not for me to say, but I would not see why adding this
work item might not be considered friendly.

2. One part of the fee that we did not have the ability to understand
was the $100, 000 USD base fee.  I might note, that many people before
us have had the same questions we had, so we are not alone in not
understanding this fee. There are members in the group who believe that
some portion of this fee may also be inappropriate for developing
economies, but as we do not understand the full basis of this fee, we
cannot make recommendations in this regard.  The charter item:

> "Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine
its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be
waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance."

Is a work item that requires the JAS WG to work more closely with staff
to understand the components of this fee and to see whether any parts of
that fee are inappropriate for applicants from developing economies.

So changing this charter item as you suggest, is something I do not
understand and would not personally support, again not that that

Best regards,


On 14 Nov 2010, at 14:05, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Rafik,
> Here is my thinking on the second amendment:
> *         Any waiving of fees will reduce the funds available for
processing applications.
> *         Because the fees were calculated to cover actual application
processing costs and assuming that the calculations are accurate, there
may be a shortfall of funds to cover application processing costs.
> *         How will that shortfall be covered?
> *         Keep in mind that there are no specifically designated funds
budgeted in the regular ICANN budget for application processing.
> *         In proposing the amendment there was no intention on my part
to pass judgment on the motion itself; rather, it seemed to me that if
there is a shortfall, we should find out whether that has an impact, and
if so, have some idea how that impact will be mitigated.
> *         All the amendment does is add another task for the JAS WG,
asking the group to work with Staff to get information on the new gTLD
budget implications if fees are waived and explore ways to mitigate
those impacts, if any.
> Does this help?
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:42 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
> Hello, 
> I am forwarding Avri's answers to Chuck's questions which are below. 
> For the first amendment, I accept the first one as friendly.
> about the second ones, I am not understanding the aim, maybe other
rewording can work?
> Regards
> Rafik
> 2010/11/13 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Dear Chuck,
> Some initial answers from my perspective as one of the co-chairs.
> Of course I do not have Council list posting rights, and am not even
sure whether Rafik and Bill  would want my raw answers passed on raw.
> A reminder, as a Joint AC/SO WG this motion is also being put before
ALAC. Any changes etc  will eventually need to be ironed out between the
two groups.
> My comments in-line.
> On 12 Nov 2010, at 09:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > In advance of our consideration of this motion I want to propose a
couple amendments (re just a typo) and ask a few questions that
hopefully can be answered on the list before our meeting on the 18th.
> >
> > Resolved 1(a)
> > *         The second sentence of this part of the resolution says,
"Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for
support. The group should be argumented to have the necessary expertise
to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the
comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this
> > *         Proposed amendment (typo correction):  In 1(a) under
Resolved, change 'argumented' to 'augmented'.
> Yes, Thank you for catching that.
> > *         Have the experts needed been identified yet?  If not, how
will they be identified?
> No. There have been some background conversations with Staff about
this and there was an offer of help in terms of bringing in some
visitors to the group to discuss various issues.  Discussing the type of
expertise needed would be an initial item for the WG.
> > *         Is it anticipated that adding experts will require
funding?  If so, from where would the funding come?
> It has not been anticipated that there will be an expense.  But if
there is, we do not have any idea of where funding would come from.
Perhaps Karla can let us know if there is any funding in the new budget
for such support if needed.
> It is also possible that there are volunteers either within the ICANN
community or outside of it who could be brought in without expenses. I
tend to look at this whole process of trying to get help for applicants
from developing regions as pro-bono work.  If the charter extensions are
approved, I expect I will make an outreach to people I know, as I expect
others in the group would.
> >
> > Resolved 1(c)
> > *         The resolution says, "Establishing a framework, including
a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation,
for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and
ongoing assistance".
> > *         What does 'ICANN originated foundation' mean?
> The specifics are far from clear and hence the work item.  There has
been a conversation for a long while, including the days of GNSO policy
making and in some of the DAG discussions,  that processing any funds
gained in auctions beyond  costs might be best dealt with outside of
normal ICANN budgeting and accounting.    This item recommends that we
start working on those idea, including the idea of an independent
foundation set up by ICANN for just this purpose.  Of course we are also
looking for funds beyond just auction proceeds, but the source of those
funds is as of yet unclear, and hence a work item.
> > *         Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN General Council's
> Not that I know of.  Does looking into this need to be vetted with
them?  Certainly they would need to be part of any discussions and
planning, and of course execution if such were ultimately recommended
and approved, but do GNSO and ALAC need their permission to talk about
it?  This is not consensus policy that affects contractual conditions.
All the JAS WG can do is make recommendation to our chartering
organizations, the community and the Board.
> >
> > Resolved 1(h)
> > *         The resolution says, "Review the basis of the US$100,000
application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what
percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the
requirements for assistance."
> > *         Understanding that the application fees are intended to
cover application processing costs and no more, from where is it
envisioned that the offset of the fee waivers would come?
> This was discussed in the recommendations themselves.  The suggestion
is in keeping with the GNSO policy decision that while the program needs
to be self funding as a whole, there can be differential fees paid by
the applicants.
> For each of the fees that the JAS WG has recommended being waived for
applicants who meet the criteria, there is a reason for why that fee
would not be appropriate for someone from a developing region to have to
> In terms of this US$100,000 fee,  however,that basis of that fee was
not clear and hence the need to investigate the basis of that fee
further to see if any parts of it are not appropriate for those from
developing regions.
> > *         Proposed amendment: Add a new sentence that says, "Work
with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee
waivers would be funded."
> I would not think this an equivalent item.
> This could be another work item, however..
> >
> > If the answers to the questions can be provided in advance of the
Council meeting on 18 November, I think the chances of acting on this
motion on the 18th will be increased and the sooner the better so that
Councilors can provide the answers to their respective groups.
> >
> > Rafik/Bill:  Do you consider the two proposed amendments as
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks
> a.

More information about the council mailing list